I wonder if Dick Cheney would have gotten all of his heart surgeries if he was a private citizen? With his pre-existing condition he would have been DENIED! But nope my tax dollars pay for HIS health care and ALL the health care for ALL the politicians, but we the people suffer while they sit and laugh at us. Think about that the next time you get a bill from your insurance company. Greed is awful, and we are the victims. STOP THE REPUBLIACNS and TRUMP FROM REPEALING THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL!
We all know that to get the corporate MSM's attention, you have to shock them. And like Jesse Jackson told the late Arthur Ashe, sometimes you have to be even "arrogant".
But look at this clip. People are dying because of a lack of universal care. And what do we see? A Broadway show tune designed to get max. hits on You Tube.
The cast/protestors/whatever obviously care. But, would you see this in any other country in the world?
@whereismybailouttv is there a better medium to deliver the message? what's wrong with showtunes? What makes it great is the irony. the only way to get heard is to sing during a meeting of lobbyists. That's whats hillarious about the whole situation.
They made a good point in a pleasant and concise way BRAVO! They knew they would not have much time, and they did get their point heard on the news etc. Many more detailed, factual pleas, REAL tragic stories etc. have fallen on relatively few ears. learn more? healthcareforamericanow is a good org:)
@ObamaEqualsStupid No, they form opinions from infinitely reasonable, logical tour-de-force videos like "Young Obama Was Pure Marxist Socialist Serial Killer Who Liked To Rape Babies While Simultaneously Taking A Dump On The American Flag part 1".
OK that's what I thought. Those are the one's , mostly homeless, dying of hepatitis C, AIDS and alcoholism. Pretty much uninsurable. Dregs of the earth. Would die even if they had insurance.
@TAMARLANE "Pretty much uninsurable" - under *your* rules... or those of heartless, for-profit insurance companies. Everyone is "insurable." The question is merely whether it is a smart risk according to the actuarial tables.
One day, you and I will also die. I hope that we won't be considered uninsurable when we need it.
I think I am pretty much uninsurable now. At 72 with an abdominal aortic aneurysm I am certain the government would write me off too. Pretending that the government would do better than private insurance and private medical care is stupid. Sort of like pretending that that red meat, that steak, you are preparing to eat just appeared out of the ether
It is tradition, not just for America, but for everywhere, you get 8 cell divisions and then you die. I always laugh when I hear how many lives.
Actually, the government does a FANTASTIC job insuring employees. 900,000 people have great healthcare. I merely want access to what the senators and congress have.
With whose money? I merely want the same health care provided Ted Kennedy too. And, I would like a gorgeous home on Nob Hill in SF. While you are at it, a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce and an 80' yacht. While we are at it throw in a villa in Spain and a nice bank account, say $200,000,000 would be nice.
could have been , or will be '"saved" with national health care is just ridiculous. Lower paid doctors and nurses and care givers, .. Too few of them to provide for the needs of all the people. this whole thing is just a Trojan horse for gaining control over the people, same as in all socialized countries.
Not just on principle. On the fact that they are both broke and don't work. They are a burden on society and getting much worse as our population ages.Not only are these two programs bankrupt, but there are too many people cheating in our society to take advantage of both medicare and social security. Freeloaders. Deadbeats. Criminals.
I would have responded sooner, but, it took a while to hack your computer, get your GPS and uncover your account name through your server.Before the cancer ends my life I will sneak up on you and stuff you up your own ass. It should be easy.
Yes. I laugh at you because you are an rabid, feral and hysterical in your anger and lack basic reasoning skills.
If you were sane and logical, you would not be as entertaining.
Good luck with your medical conditions and I am proud of you for saying you reject SS payment and Medicare; take your talk a step further and stop using the service.
ok yall tell me how tort reform and opening up interstate trade of helth insurance wont fix the problem. becaues i will tell you this. this bill is nothing more than a powergrab on the part of the liberals that wrote and seem to push it as the only option to save the country without allowing ANY debate what so ever.
to provide for the general welfare is the constitutional power under which Medicare is constitutional and under which health reform is as well.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
providing for the common welfare is one thing but providing all our needs is another . we as the people have a responsablilty to our selfs and our country to take care of our own needs and wants, this allows the government to take care of PROTECTING us and our country from harm that is what is ment when they say to provide for the general welfare. not a big brother to give us all we desire.
Well it is nice that you have an opinion about what that clause means. But the only opinions that matter are the Supreme Court's.
Medicare is constitutional under the general welfare clause and so is health reform.
There are two things that the Congress can raise taxes for, the common defense, which is for protecting the country, and the general welfare, which is to promote the well-being of the people governed.
well i think a voter and tax payers thoughts on the matter count just as much but as far as what we think on this matter i belive we will just have to agree to disagree but thanks for your reply its the only one that i have not recived that was not insulting.
56% of the country is against government-run healthcare. I don't care how many pretty names you give it...public option, consumer option...or how many statistics you make up, it doesn't change the fact that Americans don't want this rammed down our throats by a DemoCRAPtic congress that is heelbent on forcing their leftist agenda on us.
If you are against socialism, I pray you avoid medicare, social security and public schools. I you don't you are full of it.
And the polls I have looked into say 78% of Americans want a government option. I guess they think that Canadians have a better longevity rate and a higher birth rate, they're doing a better job.
Two failing and bankrupt socialist programs...not a smart way to advance your argument in favor of another massive government plan.
Please cite the source that supports your claim that 78% of Americans support a government takeover of the healthcare system. Rasmussen's latest poll shows support for the Pelosi plan to be 42%.
Polls in the last month say that between 50-60% of Americans are for the the public option. Less then 40% of Americans are for Obama's healthcare IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC OPTION. The 78% of Americans that the other youtube user cites is the support for the Senate public option which allows State's the option to opt-out.
Glad these people are acting up. It's time for the United States to join the civilized world by letting its citizens gain the security and demonstrated efficiency of a national health insurance plan.
just because a majority says they want something does NOT mean the government has the power to do it. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC -- NOT a democracy. If you want your state to offer a public option, then ask your governor to enact such a policy, but the US constitution does not provide any provisions for the federal government to become involved in matters pertaining to public service in the form of health care.
HOWEVER! That is a neat delivery on their part. If they were out working instead of rehearsing they would be able to by healthcare and not depend on the government. ZZZZZIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
I hope the public option gets passed. So the fattest country on Earth can get health care. I hope it gets passed so it bankrupts the country, and Republicans get blamed for that too. Watch it will happen. My only concern, is why should I support a healthcare plan for people that do not even care enough to remain overweight? Some one give me a good answer for that one and I may support it. Till then, I'm Joe The Plumber, working for what I have, and not expected to be given anything.
Get rid of the corporate welfare that gives incentives to food companies to put high fructose corn syrup in every damn thing and people's weight will come down.
Very original and tactful response. This is the best advertisement for healthcare...standing ovation. Harry Reid pledged TODAY the PUBLIC OPTION will be in the insurance reform bill~
Don't get sick unless your extremely wealthy and you can afford it.. Oh who provided your elementary education did you go to private school or did the tax payer pay for it? If you went to private school think your parents need to get their money back. If you went to public school I think the tax payer needs their money back . But thanks for being a non compassionate bastard hope you never get sick or know anyone who gets sick..
I'm not sick and I'm not wealthy. Schools are run by local governments, and that's not where the debate on health care is. Apparently you're trying to change the topic which shows that you know nothing about health care which leads me to believe that taxpayers need their money back. I am compassionate for your stupidity and lack of education that you "have a right to"
Say government run insurance is unfair. If you don't think it is then tell me how is it fair that one person has to involuntarily pay for another persons health costs? How?
You do stupid things to yourself, you pay for it, you are unhealthy you pay for it, you have some preexisting condition'? well then....why should i pay for it?> Is it my fault that you have it?? of course it's not my fault. Stop this unfair system, write to your representatives and make sure they vote NO.
health care is one of the basic human rights. What people are debating today is not whether its fair to give necessary treatments to those who need them. majory of American people claim themselves as christian, there is nothing about this should be 'debated'. jesus said, whatever you do unto the leat of mine, you do it on to me.
what issue is debated now is the way to make the health care system sustainable, since the system we have has been deeply broken by the cowboy-style insurance market
The difference between a christian and a government run by Christians is that a Christian willfully gives his wealth away for the benefit of others and for his own salvation at a cost to himself only.
A government run by christians forcefully takes money from others and claims the money is theirs. and then does what a christian does.
This is why Jesus advocated for compassionate individuals and not for compassionate government. See the difference?
i believe my sympathy to the people in need is based on the emotions god entitles human being. i simply believe Health care is one of human rights, and maybe most important one, since otherwise other rights cannot be fulfilled. and i don't want to argue this with you.
and gov is an typical social contract made among the people, since we need public infrastructure to supply basic public service. its is a part of social fabric
jesus was against Romen governor, against bribed and corrupt churches does not mean he is backing individualism. does not mean he polarize gov and individual.
as all we know, Jesus not only advocates individual subduing to the god, with enrapturing, but also emphasize the relationship between people, especially the 'love'.
so when i say jesus's teaching is worthy noticing, i mean we cannot just throw people in need in to the cow-boy crazy style insurance market. this is not humane.
when i say its an human right, i mean i am support universal coverage, i think this is one of function of gov.: prevent its civilian from any injury and guarantee any residents can get treatment without death caused by treatable diseases
public option does not mean universal coverage.but in some western European countries, both universal coverage and socialized medicine is an unchangeable social fabric, both conservatives and progressives are backing it. even Thatcher did not privatize it.
human rights are not granted by the government, they exist even if there was no government and no constitution, and the rights are life,liberty, and pursuit of happines(some call it property). government is only supposed to protect those rights but it fails doing that too.
How fair is it that one person has to involuntarily pay for another person's health cost? I don't mind paying for the Veterans Administration, do you? Some "pre-existing conditions" are turning out to be rather loosely defined; Christina Turner found out that rape is a pre-existing condition. How can you let profiteers decide what to deny you?
I don't mind paying for anything that is in the constitution because that is the contract between the people and the FEDERAL government. Veteran's administration can be considered as part of running the military therefore i would not object to that example, but I would to many many others. Yes, the problem is health insurance should be called health "service plan" because it's no longer insuance. Insurance turned into "service" because of stupid laws passed by feds, that's why we need reform.
on the note of constitution, you either accept all of it or nothing. In a contract you can't decide which parts you will follow and which ones you won't because when you sign a contract you agree to all of it. So my point is this, if you want government run health care, pass an amendment to constitution to make it part of the people-gov contract, I will have no objections to pay my share then because like I said, it's all or nothing even though I would have voted against the amendment.
I think your "could be considered as part of" makes assumptions that runs afoul of your later strict contract requirements; contracts don't 'consider' anything not specifically spelled out. On another point, if you accept all of the Constitution, that would include the "promote the general welfare" wording in the preamble. In our time, that means addressing our system of health care. Soc Sec did not require an amendment, so shouldn't be necessary for HCR.
just because SS or other progms. are unconstitutional doesn't mean this one should be also.(const. limits what fed gov can do, not the other way around)
What makes Soc Sec unconstitutional? Your saying so brings exactly zero reasons. If it was unconstitional, why hasn't some neocon or right winger gotten a case in front of the Supreme Court and terminated it?
I accept the general welfare clause, but you are not interpreting it in the proper way. General welfare means that whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country, it does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of country is allowed. What is and isn't allowed is more specified in the rest of the constitution.
"Whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country" sounds like the goal of everyone pushing for HCR. "does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of the country is allowed"; True enough, but if enough of the populace decides it should be allowed, guess what happens.
yes that's the goal, but that "enough" you're talking about is having enough votes to amend the constitution, which is not what is happening in this case.
Also i can argue that the goal doesn't matter but the actuall effect of the HCR for the general welfare clause, then we have to look at the actual effect and as you can see conservatives argue that it will hurt the wellbeing of this country.
Again, no reason an amendment is required; Congress enacts all kinds of programs without requiring amendments for each. The "general welfare" wording in the preamble doesn't say it has to come in the form of an amendment. HCR does not have to be treated as a civil rights or states rights issue. And the 'enough' I'm talking about was the 2008 election and HCR is one of the results.
i missed that reply, what makes it unconstitutional is the fact that it is not specified in the constitution that the federal government shall run a retirement program for the elderly. like I said, if it's not in the constitution then it's unconstitutional. Also look up 10th amendment, anything not specified in the constitution is a states issue or just an issue for people to resolve for themselves (which i think is the case, SS is simply saving for the retirement)
Does the Consitution say we had to put a man on the moon? Or was that a states right issue? What specifically about Social Security separates it from the hundred other programs Congress enacts evey year? And if it is, as you say, un-Constitutional, why has no conservative at any time in the last 70 years managed to squelch it? We both know, there are people who would love to terminate it, so why haven't they canceled it on Constitutional grounds? Unless, I thought of it first....
the answer is simple, constitution is dead, no one follows it anymore except a few people in congress (like ron paul). A good example of that was the alcohol prohibition in 1920s, to have a prohibition we passed an amendment, then to repeal it we had to pass another amendment - all of that was done according to the constitution. now look at today, we have a national prohibition on many drugs but where's the amendment?? exactly
this is the underlying problem in our country, the fed government doesn't follow the constitution because no one is calling them out on it. And if someone does it's just ignored and people point to "general welfare" and they think it's ok. well it's not ok but that's just the way things are right now. It just turns out that pointing out if something is constitutional turns out to be the weakest argument, or sometimes disregarded completely.
States treat drug enforcement differently and now the Fed is going to back off a bit and allow them to do it more so. Hmmm, under Obama's watch and not Bush or Reagan; how will the neocons spin this?
A lot of things are "regulated", or "prohibited" that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. "Do not call lists", child labor laws, gay marriage, cloning, talking during movies, etc.
A step in the right direction by Obama, but not there yet. Bush took a bid dump on the constitution.Neocons are idiots and break constitution if it fits them too.
drugs and all of the things you mentioned should imo be states issues (one state can outlaw them, while others can make them illegal or regulate however they want). in the same way i wouldn't make any constitutional arguments against state run SS or Health insurance etc or schools too, but I would be against them for other reasons.
For over a year I thought it might be a good idea if my state took on HCR for citizens here. Not that I need it, it looked like a solution to some economic disadvantages in manufacturing. I'll declare this close enough and go to bed. peace.
The US is the ONLY country who is having healthcare reform, because it's the only one that needs it.
Folks in Europe don't ever worry about the cost of getting sick. Doesn't enter into it.
It's already paid for, and it works. I was there for 27 yearsand KNOW it works. Not perfect, but no-one is dying for lack of coverage. This system is a DISGRACE!!
I have also switched from discussing Single Payer by itself to attaching MEDICARE FOR ALL to it ... the "opposition" online sometimes start listening then, because they begin to realize that they are FOR their Medicare when they turn 65!
Slowly but surely we can de-program them, and I am finally starting to use more sugar less vinegar as well (lol)...
damn right, and privatize the police and fire department! let the free market decide in all matters who lives and who dies! let's not just stop at healthcare!
Republicans want to spend 1 trillion tax dollars blowing up Iraq then rebuilding Iraq at our tax expense for the Iraqis, but don't want to spend money on Americans well being???
Want to hear the real twisted part? We set up a single payer system for Iraq. And, the war in Iraq is actually costing us well over 4 trillion dollars total, not 1 trillion.
that ranking is such a fraud, it ranks health care quality based on things that have nothing to do with healthcare quality in 50% of its weights, google it and google the criticism so you can get a clue.
you google it so you can read about it, from people who are well qualified to make that judgement (PhD, MD etc). If that's so hard for you to comprehend then, and it seems that it is... then I'm just wasting time here, and you would be too since you're too stupid to do a simple research on the topic. get lost.
Oh I comprehend what you're saying, I'm just not going to trust anything I read on some random website from someone who may or may not legitimately be a healthcare professional over the report of the WHO, sorry but that just seems assinine. If you truly believe that the WHO came out with that list with the sole intention of making us look bad you'll need more of a source than that.
I'll make this easier for you,WHO ranked countries based on weighted importance of the following categories.
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
Read about what each one means, and determine for yourself if the weights are fair (weights are always arbitrary) and how relevant the categories actualy are at measuring quality of the system
I work in healthcare as a Technician, and have for the past 11 years. Not only am I well aware of what each term means, I have seen it in action. I personally it's even worse. But anyway, what do YOU think of our healthcare system? Do you believe that it's okay?
I think it's relatively better than what is offered. I heard some good ideas on how to make it better that I agree with but that's not what is being rammed through the congress .
Funny thing is when I called to dispute the bill with the doc's billing department I was treated like a criminal for asking why the doc was charging $412.00 for not even really looking at me its a consultation fee is what I was told. Any one could see my wrist was broken. I asked the girl do I get a consultation fee I'm the expert on which direction my bones go I told the emergency room nurse it was broke. She did not reply
karalinev1 I agree, so many doctors and surgeons are forming "groups" and "associations", and their own for-profit "facilities" too... I smell profit-sharing !
So many docs are in it for the smell of money. GREED! The sicker people are, the richer they get. Doyou really think they want people to get well? The HMO's want people to NOT get sick, and if they get TOO sick, they drop you.
It really doesn't matter that 70% of Americans want the public option because those Americans are putting up the kind of money the insurance lobbies are putting up to kill the public option. Get the insurance lobbies out and maybe will have a chance at some real reform.
A Gallup poll released earlier Wednesday described Americans as "about evenly split" on the issue with 50 percent favoring it and 46 percent opposed, a spread just outside the margin of error. A Washington Post/ABC News poll on Tuesday said, like the CNN one does now, that support for the public option had rebounded since August with 57 percent now backing it while 40 percent were opposed.
Less brainwashed bags full of dough? Maybe someone needs some education to improve their spelling. Sure that's a cheap shot, but your comment was straight up insult; at least mine provides you with a learning opportunity.
Public Option-->People Leave their more expensive insurers-->Private Insurers go out of business-->more people unemployed-->more people without insurance-->public option becomes only option. Am I missing something?
Shampew > people used to make horse and buggies in America too>Cutting out the middlemen in insurance industry making for-profit health insurance obsolete and a felony (as in other democratic countries)> No more healthcare insurance ripping off millions> No more bankruptcies due to medical bills> No more deaths due to lack of insurance> No more uninsured even while unemployed> Medicare for All> America finally joins civilized democratic Western Industrialized Nations of the world
But, people won't leave their HMO's since it seems to work so well for you and sooo many others will they?
You can keep the HMO's in business, as well as all the other R/Wingers who lick the HMO's asses.
If the PO is so bad, then no-one will use it will they???? Oh, it may be cheaper and save people money so others can afford it. Yes, you are missing something. A BRAIN
silkysausage Public universities compete with for profit private ones just fine ... what scares them so about public option, they must have stock? Otherwise going against their own best interests makes no sense.
i'm not going to say that whole 70% of Americans want a public option. but dose someone have a link to the study that says that? and what ppl voted inn this poll? not saying it's wrong but i would like to have all the facts
You idiot I'm speaking the truth...what make you think everything is free in America? Fucktard and learn how to spell social security dickwad...not "socail securtiy".
please note the example you speak of "refused to provide her with treatment because she was a foriegner" ... in the US obama allows senior age foreigners to collect socail securtiy ... without ever working a day in the country ......
they are afraid of coming to us b/c the cost is so high
in the movie, they mentioned one of their friends went Florida, but got injuries, he got measured and cued. but the bill is astonishing. they are scared by the cost in us
So how would deregulation, allowing for increased competition, be a bad thing? On the other hand the people in this video seem to think that a public option is the answer. I don't think it's that cut and dry. The majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford insurance on top of their other bills. A PU could possibly drive costs down, but people like me STILL wouldn't be able to aford it! I'm barely making it paycheck to paycheck. So what option do I have?
"Indeed, deregulation of the banking industry serves as a powerful example -- of why rules and standards for the health insurance industry are necessary..."
I'm assuming you're refering to the mortgage bubble bursting. In which case you should be aware that it was INCREASED regulations forcing banks to give sub-prime loans to "high risk" consumers that caused most of what we know as the "housing collapse".
Oh, right. Banks didn't write as many high risk loans as they could and sell them as mortgage-backed securities to maximize their profits. Oh, no. They were forced to write loans for more than customers could afford and for more than the property was worth.
Did I not say most? I understand that banks were greedy, and that had a good deal to do with the mortgage collapse, but without the interference of the government regulations in the first place not ONE sub-prime loan would have ever been issued.
Yeah you sure do because now you're putting words in my mouth. Oh and one more thing... since we agree that greed isn't a human right, then why are we arguing about wealth redistribution to help subsidize health care which also happens NOT to be a human right?
It's now quite obvious that you need to re-read my comment, or at the very least educate yourself. How many sub-prime loans do you think were issued before the regulations put in place? Very few because lenders knew that problems could easily arise. In 1998 a man stood in front of Congress and testified to the fact that if we did not remove the current regulations on the mortgage industry that we would eventually see a collapse. Hmm I wonder if he was right....
Over here health insurance is automatically deducted from every paycheck. That means if an employer pays you the bare minimum to survive they need to pay you more, otherwise they won't find anyone to work for them.
The problem with low taxes, no mandatory health insurance, etc. is, you can afford to live on very little pay and therefore your employer can afford to pay you very little, and so they will.
That's why your wages have been stagnant for over thirty years...
I wonder if Dick Cheney would have gotten all of his heart surgeries if he was a private citizen? With his pre-existing condition he would have been DENIED! But nope my tax dollars pay for HIS health care and ALL the health care for ALL the politicians, but we the people suffer while they sit and laugh at us. Think about that the next time you get a bill from your insurance company. Greed is awful, and we are the victims. STOP THE REPUBLIACNS and TRUMP FROM REPEALING THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL!
NowThePeople 9 months ago
You know the funny thing is, I was normally a healthy person, but this heal;thcare debate is really making me ill.
So fuck off Insurance lobbyists. SCREW YOU!
TheMartian20 1 year ago
No you wouldn't.
So the point is that I'm really disgusted that it's gone down to this level. Feeling really frustrated....
whereismybailouttv 1 year ago
We all know that to get the corporate MSM's attention, you have to shock them. And like Jesse Jackson told the late Arthur Ashe, sometimes you have to be even "arrogant".
But look at this clip. People are dying because of a lack of universal care. And what do we see? A Broadway show tune designed to get max. hits on You Tube.
The cast/protestors/whatever obviously care. But, would you see this in any other country in the world?
whereismybailouttv 1 year ago
@whereismybailouttv is there a better medium to deliver the message? what's wrong with showtunes? What makes it great is the irony. the only way to get heard is to sing during a meeting of lobbyists. That's whats hillarious about the whole situation.
SpaceCowboy1218 5 months ago
That was awesome.
iamthe1337est 1 year ago
They made a good point in a pleasant and concise way BRAVO! They knew they would not have much time, and they did get their point heard on the news etc. Many more detailed, factual pleas, REAL tragic stories etc. have fallen on relatively few ears. learn more? healthcareforamericanow is a good org:)
jarnocan 1 year ago
do people actually form opinions using garbage videos like this?
ObamaEqualsStupid 2 years ago
@ObamaEqualsStupid No, they form opinions from infinitely reasonable, logical tour-de-force videos like "Young Obama Was Pure Marxist Socialist Serial Killer Who Liked To Rape Babies While Simultaneously Taking A Dump On The American Flag part 1".
bobb666666 1 year ago
Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand Cardinal de Retz
ObamaEqualsStupid 1 year ago
The Public, wants options! Without it, it's a corporate, give-away!!!!
I love it.
leftofcenter44 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what a site 5millionsitegiveaway com
millionsitegiveaway 2 years ago
Replay replay
Nljacks09 2 years ago
"Lieberman needs to be curtailed. See to it, will you Bond?"
"He's worse than Blofeld, sir."
"Yes, Bond. Some of these corporate people in America are the New Evil."
truthgroove 2 years ago
Pretty song ... beautiful voices ...
.... but gov't is going to take control of 1/7 of our economy? omg .....
I really don't want more gov't in my life please
Certain things I do like about the health care reform bill, such as doing away with pre-existing condition requirements insurance companies mandate
but ... jailing and fining people because they don't purchase something ...
... in America?
that's unconstitutional, no matter how you sing/sling it
BellyButtonQuiz 2 years ago
Who knew it was so much fun to attend insurance company functions? I chose the wrong career. "Who let these people in here?!" Love it.
mrdymaxion 2 years ago
How many people die each year who do have health insurance?
TAMARLANE 2 years ago
@tarmarlane It is not 45,000 people who die each year and happen to not have health insurance.
It is 45,000 people who die each year BECAUSE they don't have health insurance.
The study was done by the Cambridge Health Alliance.
monkeyfelo 2 years ago
OK that's what I thought. Those are the one's , mostly homeless, dying of hepatitis C, AIDS and alcoholism. Pretty much uninsurable. Dregs of the earth. Would die even if they had insurance.
TAMARLANE 2 years ago
@tamarlane
Jesus would be proud of you.
monkeyfelo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus loves you.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
@TAMARLANE "Pretty much uninsurable" - under *your* rules... or those of heartless, for-profit insurance companies. Everyone is "insurable." The question is merely whether it is a smart risk according to the actuarial tables.
One day, you and I will also die. I hope that we won't be considered uninsurable when we need it.
mrdymaxion 2 years ago
I think I am pretty much uninsurable now. At 72 with an abdominal aortic aneurysm I am certain the government would write me off too. Pretending that the government would do better than private insurance and private medical care is stupid. Sort of like pretending that that red meat, that steak, you are preparing to eat just appeared out of the ether
It is tradition, not just for America, but for everywhere, you get 8 cell divisions and then you die. I always laugh when I hear how many lives.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
Actually, the government does a FANTASTIC job insuring employees. 900,000 people have great healthcare. I merely want access to what the senators and congress have.
barbaradering 2 years ago
barbaradering
With whose money? I merely want the same health care provided Ted Kennedy too. And, I would like a gorgeous home on Nob Hill in SF. While you are at it, a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce and an 80' yacht. While we are at it throw in a villa in Spain and a nice bank account, say $200,000,000 would be nice.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
I said access. that is not entitlement. But thanks for your fantasy.
barbaradering 2 years ago
could have been , or will be '"saved" with national health care is just ridiculous. Lower paid doctors and nurses and care givers, .. Too few of them to provide for the needs of all the people. this whole thing is just a Trojan horse for gaining control over the people, same as in all socialized countries.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
I am happy to hear you reject medicare and social security on principle.
barbaradering 2 years ago
Not just on principle. On the fact that they are both broke and don't work. They are a burden on society and getting much worse as our population ages.Not only are these two programs bankrupt, but there are too many people cheating in our society to take advantage of both medicare and social security. Freeloaders. Deadbeats. Criminals.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
Its amazing how terrible the health care in Canada is...what with the longer life expectancy and better birth rates and all.
barbaradering 2 years ago
Comment removed
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
Gawd you are stoooopid.
Can you think of anything else, aside from health care that may contribute to a longer life expectancy? No? LOL
And just what the fuck is a "better birth rate"?
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
the absence of fear that being ill can cause them to go bankrupt?
barbaradering 2 years ago
I fear for you. The cancer is taking over your brain and your soul is not worth saving.
barbaradering 2 years ago
I would have responded sooner, but, it took a while to hack your computer, get your GPS and uncover your account name through your server.Before the cancer ends my life I will sneak up on you and stuff you up your own ass. It should be easy.
TAMARLANE 2 years ago
Looking forward to your efforts, weenie.
If you were more intelligent and less angry you wouldn't be 1/2 as funny.
barbaradering 2 years ago
Let me get this right.
More intelligent
Less angry
would not be as funny???? Is that it? Does that make sense?
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
Yes. I laugh at you because you are an rabid, feral and hysterical in your anger and lack basic reasoning skills.
If you were sane and logical, you would not be as entertaining.
Good luck with your medical conditions and I am proud of you for saying you reject SS payment and Medicare; take your talk a step further and stop using the service.
barbaradering 2 years ago
this is helarious!
schmoodles 2 years ago
Are you in favor of the public option?
Do you live in New York, Atlanta or LA?
On THURSDAY November 5, 2009 at 12pm, TYT is organizing a peaceful protest outside CNN HEADQUARTERS in these three locations!
Bring as many people as you can and please visit THE YOUNG TURKS web page or youtube page for further details.
sf2fs 2 years ago
Yeah, and 83% of Americans think Darkrift777 is an ignoramus. Also, 53% of statistics on this thread are completely made up.
PhiRatio 2 years ago
70% of Americans do not support the public option.
Darkrift777 2 years ago
I LOVED it !!!
Lets send this in masses to Senator Joe Liebermans office.
irishfan2008 2 years ago
ok yall tell me how tort reform and opening up interstate trade of helth insurance wont fix the problem. becaues i will tell you this. this bill is nothing more than a powergrab on the part of the liberals that wrote and seem to push it as the only option to save the country without allowing ANY debate what so ever.
SaintLiam78 2 years ago
LOVE IT!!!!
rise54321 2 years ago
That was Awesome! Keep up the pressure in your wonderfully entertaining way.
lucasctaylor 2 years ago
LMAO
fazadeset 2 years ago
to provide for the general welfare is the constitutional power under which Medicare is constitutional and under which health reform is as well.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
monkeyfelo 2 years ago
providing for the common welfare is one thing but providing all our needs is another . we as the people have a responsablilty to our selfs and our country to take care of our own needs and wants, this allows the government to take care of PROTECTING us and our country from harm that is what is ment when they say to provide for the general welfare. not a big brother to give us all we desire.
SaintLiam78 2 years ago
Well it is nice that you have an opinion about what that clause means. But the only opinions that matter are the Supreme Court's.
Medicare is constitutional under the general welfare clause and so is health reform.
There are two things that the Congress can raise taxes for, the common defense, which is for protecting the country, and the general welfare, which is to promote the well-being of the people governed.
monkeyfelo 2 years ago
well i think a voter and tax payers thoughts on the matter count just as much but as far as what we think on this matter i belive we will just have to agree to disagree but thanks for your reply its the only one that i have not recived that was not insulting.
SaintLiam78 2 years ago
56% of the country is against government-run healthcare. I don't care how many pretty names you give it...public option, consumer option...or how many statistics you make up, it doesn't change the fact that Americans don't want this rammed down our throats by a DemoCRAPtic congress that is heelbent on forcing their leftist agenda on us.
NoVotesForJoe 2 years ago
If you are against socialism, I pray you avoid medicare, social security and public schools. I you don't you are full of it.
And the polls I have looked into say 78% of Americans want a government option. I guess they think that Canadians have a better longevity rate and a higher birth rate, they're doing a better job.
barbaradering 2 years ago
Two failing and bankrupt socialist programs...not a smart way to advance your argument in favor of another massive government plan.
Please cite the source that supports your claim that 78% of Americans support a government takeover of the healthcare system. Rasmussen's latest poll shows support for the Pelosi plan to be 42%.
NoVotesForJoe 2 years ago
Polls in the last month say that between 50-60% of Americans are for the the public option. Less then 40% of Americans are for Obama's healthcare IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC OPTION. The 78% of Americans that the other youtube user cites is the support for the Senate public option which allows State's the option to opt-out.
Champraves311 2 years ago
Glad these people are acting up. It's time for the United States to join the civilized world by letting its citizens gain the security and demonstrated efficiency of a national health insurance plan.
anxiousmodernman 2 years ago 12
just because a majority says they want something does NOT mean the government has the power to do it. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC -- NOT a democracy. If you want your state to offer a public option, then ask your governor to enact such a policy, but the US constitution does not provide any provisions for the federal government to become involved in matters pertaining to public service in the form of health care.
Bulldog22031 2 years ago
lol, is singing against the law?
whynotflip 2 years ago 2
I love this . Better than a show of anger. we can disagree and have fun at the same time without a show of Guns.
warrenstone2000 2 years ago
HOWEVER! That is a neat delivery on their part. If they were out working instead of rehearsing they would be able to by healthcare and not depend on the government. ZZZZZIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
willywonkachevy 2 years ago
I hope the public option gets passed. So the fattest country on Earth can get health care. I hope it gets passed so it bankrupts the country, and Republicans get blamed for that too. Watch it will happen. My only concern, is why should I support a healthcare plan for people that do not even care enough to remain overweight? Some one give me a good answer for that one and I may support it. Till then, I'm Joe The Plumber, working for what I have, and not expected to be given anything.
willywonkachevy 2 years ago
Get rid of the corporate welfare that gives incentives to food companies to put high fructose corn syrup in every damn thing and people's weight will come down.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
Very original and tactful response. This is the best advertisement for healthcare...standing ovation. Harry Reid pledged TODAY the PUBLIC OPTION will be in the insurance reform bill~
Rootsgal 2 years ago
check out my new blog post "the public has no options" nopolicestatecoalition . blogspot . com
comraderoman 2 years ago
czargwar
Don't get sick unless your extremely wealthy and you can afford it.. Oh who provided your elementary education did you go to private school or did the tax payer pay for it? If you went to private school think your parents need to get their money back. If you went to public school I think the tax payer needs their money back . But thanks for being a non compassionate bastard hope you never get sick or know anyone who gets sick..
karalinev1 2 years ago 2
I'm not sick and I'm not wealthy. Schools are run by local governments, and that's not where the debate on health care is. Apparently you're trying to change the topic which shows that you know nothing about health care which leads me to believe that taxpayers need their money back. I am compassionate for your stupidity and lack of education that you "have a right to"
czargwar 2 years ago
Karaline outed you for the moron you are. Deal with it.
barbaradering 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
P R I C E L E S S !!!!! :-)
ecodelsol 2 years ago
Say government run insurance is unfair. If you don't think it is then tell me how is it fair that one person has to involuntarily pay for another persons health costs? How?
You do stupid things to yourself, you pay for it, you are unhealthy you pay for it, you have some preexisting condition'? well then....why should i pay for it?> Is it my fault that you have it?? of course it's not my fault. Stop this unfair system, write to your representatives and make sure they vote NO.
czargwar 2 years ago
health care is one of the basic human rights. What people are debating today is not whether its fair to give necessary treatments to those who need them. majory of American people claim themselves as christian, there is nothing about this should be 'debated'. jesus said, whatever you do unto the leat of mine, you do it on to me.
what issue is debated now is the way to make the health care system sustainable, since the system we have has been deeply broken by the cowboy-style insurance market
chenchiheshang 2 years ago 3
Health care is not a right.
The difference between a christian and a government run by Christians is that a Christian willfully gives his wealth away for the benefit of others and for his own salvation at a cost to himself only.
A government run by christians forcefully takes money from others and claims the money is theirs. and then does what a christian does.
This is why Jesus advocated for compassionate individuals and not for compassionate government. See the difference?
czargwar 2 years ago
ok, this is our difference
i believe my sympathy to the people in need is based on the emotions god entitles human being. i simply believe Health care is one of human rights, and maybe most important one, since otherwise other rights cannot be fulfilled. and i don't want to argue this with you.
and gov is an typical social contract made among the people, since we need public infrastructure to supply basic public service. its is a part of social fabric
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
jesus was against Romen governor, against bribed and corrupt churches does not mean he is backing individualism. does not mean he polarize gov and individual.
as all we know, Jesus not only advocates individual subduing to the god, with enrapturing, but also emphasize the relationship between people, especially the 'love'.
so when i say jesus's teaching is worthy noticing, i mean we cannot just throw people in need in to the cow-boy crazy style insurance market. this is not humane.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
when i say its an human right, i mean i am support universal coverage, i think this is one of function of gov.: prevent its civilian from any injury and guarantee any residents can get treatment without death caused by treatable diseases
public option does not mean universal coverage.but in some western European countries, both universal coverage and socialized medicine is an unchangeable social fabric, both conservatives and progressives are backing it. even Thatcher did not privatize it.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
human rights are not granted by the government, they exist even if there was no government and no constitution, and the rights are life,liberty, and pursuit of happines(some call it property). government is only supposed to protect those rights but it fails doing that too.
czargwar 2 years ago
There is a thing called separation of church and state. I hope you spend a minute and look it up.
barbaradering 2 years ago
Separation of church and state is not a "thing", silly. LOL
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
How fair is it that one person has to involuntarily pay for another person's health cost? I don't mind paying for the Veterans Administration, do you? Some "pre-existing conditions" are turning out to be rather loosely defined; Christina Turner found out that rape is a pre-existing condition. How can you let profiteers decide what to deny you?
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
I don't mind paying for anything that is in the constitution because that is the contract between the people and the FEDERAL government. Veteran's administration can be considered as part of running the military therefore i would not object to that example, but I would to many many others. Yes, the problem is health insurance should be called health "service plan" because it's no longer insuance. Insurance turned into "service" because of stupid laws passed by feds, that's why we need reform.
czargwar 2 years ago
on the note of constitution, you either accept all of it or nothing. In a contract you can't decide which parts you will follow and which ones you won't because when you sign a contract you agree to all of it. So my point is this, if you want government run health care, pass an amendment to constitution to make it part of the people-gov contract, I will have no objections to pay my share then because like I said, it's all or nothing even though I would have voted against the amendment.
czargwar 2 years ago
I think your "could be considered as part of" makes assumptions that runs afoul of your later strict contract requirements; contracts don't 'consider' anything not specifically spelled out. On another point, if you accept all of the Constitution, that would include the "promote the general welfare" wording in the preamble. In our time, that means addressing our system of health care. Soc Sec did not require an amendment, so shouldn't be necessary for HCR.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
just because SS or other progms. are unconstitutional doesn't mean this one should be also.(const. limits what fed gov can do, not the other way around)
czargwar 2 years ago
What makes Soc Sec unconstitutional? Your saying so brings exactly zero reasons. If it was unconstitional, why hasn't some neocon or right winger gotten a case in front of the Supreme Court and terminated it?
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
I accept the general welfare clause, but you are not interpreting it in the proper way. General welfare means that whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country, it does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of country is allowed. What is and isn't allowed is more specified in the rest of the constitution.
czargwar 2 years ago
"Whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country" sounds like the goal of everyone pushing for HCR. "does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of the country is allowed"; True enough, but if enough of the populace decides it should be allowed, guess what happens.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
yes that's the goal, but that "enough" you're talking about is having enough votes to amend the constitution, which is not what is happening in this case.
Also i can argue that the goal doesn't matter but the actuall effect of the HCR for the general welfare clause, then we have to look at the actual effect and as you can see conservatives argue that it will hurt the wellbeing of this country.
czargwar 2 years ago
Again, no reason an amendment is required; Congress enacts all kinds of programs without requiring amendments for each. The "general welfare" wording in the preamble doesn't say it has to come in the form of an amendment. HCR does not have to be treated as a civil rights or states rights issue. And the 'enough' I'm talking about was the 2008 election and HCR is one of the results.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago 2
No reply to my comment on your take on the unconstitionality of Social Security? Conceding the point?
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
i missed that reply, what makes it unconstitutional is the fact that it is not specified in the constitution that the federal government shall run a retirement program for the elderly. like I said, if it's not in the constitution then it's unconstitutional. Also look up 10th amendment, anything not specified in the constitution is a states issue or just an issue for people to resolve for themselves (which i think is the case, SS is simply saving for the retirement)
czargwar 2 years ago
Does the Consitution say we had to put a man on the moon? Or was that a states right issue? What specifically about Social Security separates it from the hundred other programs Congress enacts evey year? And if it is, as you say, un-Constitutional, why has no conservative at any time in the last 70 years managed to squelch it? We both know, there are people who would love to terminate it, so why haven't they canceled it on Constitutional grounds? Unless, I thought of it first....
faithofthefoe 2 years ago 4
the answer is simple, constitution is dead, no one follows it anymore except a few people in congress (like ron paul). A good example of that was the alcohol prohibition in 1920s, to have a prohibition we passed an amendment, then to repeal it we had to pass another amendment - all of that was done according to the constitution. now look at today, we have a national prohibition on many drugs but where's the amendment?? exactly
czargwar 2 years ago
Looks like it has gone to court and has basically passed Supreme Court scutiny; guess that "unconstituional" argument may have to be retired.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
this is the underlying problem in our country, the fed government doesn't follow the constitution because no one is calling them out on it. And if someone does it's just ignored and people point to "general welfare" and they think it's ok. well it's not ok but that's just the way things are right now. It just turns out that pointing out if something is constitutional turns out to be the weakest argument, or sometimes disregarded completely.
czargwar 2 years ago
States treat drug enforcement differently and now the Fed is going to back off a bit and allow them to do it more so. Hmmm, under Obama's watch and not Bush or Reagan; how will the neocons spin this?
A lot of things are "regulated", or "prohibited" that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. "Do not call lists", child labor laws, gay marriage, cloning, talking during movies, etc.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago 2
A step in the right direction by Obama, but not there yet. Bush took a bid dump on the constitution.Neocons are idiots and break constitution if it fits them too.
drugs and all of the things you mentioned should imo be states issues (one state can outlaw them, while others can make them illegal or regulate however they want). in the same way i wouldn't make any constitutional arguments against state run SS or Health insurance etc or schools too, but I would be against them for other reasons.
czargwar 2 years ago
For over a year I thought it might be a good idea if my state took on HCR for citizens here. Not that I need it, it looked like a solution to some economic disadvantages in manufacturing. I'll declare this close enough and go to bed. peace.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
I WANT NO BILL
The government has no business in heathcare....
RP4409 2 years ago
you have been brainwahsed
Every other westernized nation has public care.
The US needs to catch up.
The US is the ONLY country who is having healthcare reform, because it's the only one that needs it.
Folks in Europe don't ever worry about the cost of getting sick. Doesn't enter into it.
It's already paid for, and it works. I was there for 27 yearsand KNOW it works. Not perfect, but no-one is dying for lack of coverage. This system is a DISGRACE!!
silkysausage 2 years ago
silkysausage Hat tip for
"The US needs to catch up."
Great line... I'm going to "borrow" it !
I have also switched from discussing Single Payer by itself to attaching MEDICARE FOR ALL to it ... the "opposition" online sometimes start listening then, because they begin to realize that they are FOR their Medicare when they turn 65!
Slowly but surely we can de-program them, and I am finally starting to use more sugar less vinegar as well (lol)...
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
damn right, and privatize the police and fire department! let the free market decide in all matters who lives and who dies! let's not just stop at healthcare!
MarkG45 2 years ago 2
When you hear reform..... begin to bend over.
RP4409 2 years ago
FUCK YOU MUCHACHA
boopster1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago 2
they squashed single payer hr 676 that was dumb
Isawanangel1X 2 years ago
Republicans want to spend 1 trillion tax dollars blowing up Iraq then rebuilding Iraq at our tax expense for the Iraqis, but don't want to spend money on Americans well being???
Stay classy, republicans.
Asshats.
filmacher 2 years ago 2
Want to hear the real twisted part? We set up a single payer system for Iraq. And, the war in Iraq is actually costing us well over 4 trillion dollars total, not 1 trillion.
Cowicide 2 years ago
well every developed country has a mix bag of public and privet health care, the only diffrence in US is the insurance c ompanies are too powerful.
vincevince801 2 years ago
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago
lul
FistfulofDicks 2 years ago
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago
lets all thank israel for turning america into a cancer. A self imploding disaster.
Seigu007 2 years ago
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago
damn that was AWESOME
Wiiowner 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
say NO to government insurance
czargwar 2 years ago
sure... we've already fallen to #37 in the world in healthcare quality. let's seejust how bad it can get.
WorldBFree2006 2 years ago 2
that ranking is such a fraud, it ranks health care quality based on things that have nothing to do with healthcare quality in 50% of its weights, google it and google the criticism so you can get a clue.
czargwar 2 years ago
the entire basis for you calling the world health organization's ranking system "a fraud" is a google search and your telling me to get a clue?
WorldBFree2006 2 years ago
you google it so you can read about it, from people who are well qualified to make that judgement (PhD, MD etc). If that's so hard for you to comprehend then, and it seems that it is... then I'm just wasting time here, and you would be too since you're too stupid to do a simple research on the topic. get lost.
czargwar 2 years ago
Oh I comprehend what you're saying, I'm just not going to trust anything I read on some random website from someone who may or may not legitimately be a healthcare professional over the report of the WHO, sorry but that just seems assinine. If you truly believe that the WHO came out with that list with the sole intention of making us look bad you'll need more of a source than that.
WorldBFree2006 2 years ago
I'll make this easier for you,WHO ranked countries based on weighted importance of the following categories.
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
Read about what each one means, and determine for yourself if the weights are fair (weights are always arbitrary) and how relevant the categories actualy are at measuring quality of the system
czargwar 2 years ago
I work in healthcare as a Technician, and have for the past 11 years. Not only am I well aware of what each term means, I have seen it in action. I personally it's even worse. But anyway, what do YOU think of our healthcare system? Do you believe that it's okay?
WorldBFree2006 2 years ago
I think it's relatively better than what is offered. I heard some good ideas on how to make it better that I agree with but that's not what is being rammed through the congress .
czargwar 2 years ago
I love people who are passionate for what they believe in. Though Im against socialism.
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
funny, though I dont think your numbers are right.
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
Lame
mudvillehustler 2 years ago
Awesome!!!!
jessie74 2 years ago
Funny thing is when I called to dispute the bill with the doc's billing department I was treated like a criminal for asking why the doc was charging $412.00 for not even really looking at me its a consultation fee is what I was told. Any one could see my wrist was broken. I asked the girl do I get a consultation fee I'm the expert on which direction my bones go I told the emergency room nurse it was broke. She did not reply
karalinev1 2 years ago
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago
karalinev1 I agree, so many doctors and surgeons are forming "groups" and "associations", and their own for-profit "facilities" too... I smell profit-sharing !
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Right.
So many docs are in it for the smell of money. GREED! The sicker people are, the richer they get. Doyou really think they want people to get well? The HMO's want people to NOT get sick, and if they get TOO sick, they drop you.
This system is an embarassment to humanity.
silkysausage 2 years ago
It really doesn't matter that 70% of Americans want the public option because those Americans are putting up the kind of money the insurance lobbies are putting up to kill the public option. Get the insurance lobbies out and maybe will have a chance at some real reform.
jhamaker 2 years ago 2
A Gallup poll released earlier Wednesday described Americans as "about evenly split" on the issue with 50 percent favoring it and 46 percent opposed, a spread just outside the margin of error. A Washington Post/ABC News poll on Tuesday said, like the CNN one does now, that support for the public option had rebounded since August with 57 percent now backing it while 40 percent were opposed.
marklross2 2 years ago
Let's hope they do kill this healthcare bill. Nobody wants it except people who don't pay taxes anyway.
youbestbequiet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh sad liberals, all they can do is sing and be all gay.
l1nuxun1l 2 years ago
l1nuxun1l can't read? Then try to listen to the words
Yankhadenough 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
karalinev1 2 years ago
public option -- healthy people --> less sick people --> increased productivity --> higher GDP --> prosperity --> better America!
Am I missing something?
gazai1 2 years ago
more education, less brainwashed doughbags
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
Less brainwashed bags full of dough? Maybe someone needs some education to improve their spelling. Sure that's a cheap shot, but your comment was straight up insult; at least mine provides you with a learning opportunity.
faithofthefoe 2 years ago
i love the billionaires for wealth!
atheistforchange 2 years ago
Public Option-->People Leave their more expensive insurers-->Private Insurers go out of business-->more people unemployed-->more people without insurance-->public option becomes only option. Am I missing something?
Shampew 2 years ago
Shampew > people used to make horse and buggies in America too>Cutting out the middlemen in insurance industry making for-profit health insurance obsolete and a felony (as in other democratic countries)> No more healthcare insurance ripping off millions> No more bankruptcies due to medical bills> No more deaths due to lack of insurance> No more uninsured even while unemployed> Medicare for All> America finally joins civilized democratic Western Industrialized Nations of the world
Yankhadenough 2 years ago 2
But, people won't leave their HMO's since it seems to work so well for you and sooo many others will they?
You can keep the HMO's in business, as well as all the other R/Wingers who lick the HMO's asses.
If the PO is so bad, then no-one will use it will they???? Oh, it may be cheaper and save people money so others can afford it. Yes, you are missing something. A BRAIN
silkysausage 2 years ago
silkysausage Public universities compete with for profit private ones just fine ... what scares them so about public option, they must have stock? Otherwise going against their own best interests makes no sense.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
i'm not going to say that whole 70% of Americans want a public option. but dose someone have a link to the study that says that? and what ppl voted inn this poll? not saying it's wrong but i would like to have all the facts
fatty195 2 years ago
if you think healthcare is expensive now ....
wait until it's free.....
notNEWW 2 years ago
so its not free in the past 30 years..
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
nothing is free in America you idiot...wow you think living in the United States is free? What about paying taxes? fucking piece of shit.
aznluck 2 years ago
you speak like a true democrat ....
notNEWW 2 years ago
You idiot I'm speaking the truth...what make you think everything is free in America? Fucktard and learn how to spell social security dickwad...not "socail securtiy".
aznluck 2 years ago
i think we have a big disagreement in the issue how to define freedom.
and what i mean in my last comment about freedom
i mean, there is no regulation at all
private co, can reject anyone they want.
they can define what is precondition
they can 'recover' people hiding their preconditions
they can buy doctors and congressmen to do whatever they want
they can propaganda and blind people
is such freedom not enough yet?
good grief!
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
before it becomes cheap
many people have gone to canada
in sicko, a woman has to immigrate to canada for health care
and michael moore's canadian relatives refused to go to usa because they were afraid of getting sick or injured in usa.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
please note the example you speak of "refused to provide her with treatment because she was a foriegner" ... in the US obama allows senior age foreigners to collect socail securtiy ... without ever working a day in the country ......
micheal moore left that out of his movie....
notNEWW 2 years ago
track my records
i speak of the cost
not about the insurance
they are afraid of coming to us b/c the cost is so high
in the movie, they mentioned one of their friends went Florida, but got injuries, he got measured and cued. but the bill is astonishing. they are scared by the cost in us
in canada, they have no such worry
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
actually, as a foreigner, they also can buy us insurance for vacation and travalling.
but if you like to say something about illegal immigrants.
why not mention usa can off freedom to iraq and afgan? that's not tax money?
do american feel safer after two evasion?
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
GHEYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!
JoeKerr420 2 years ago
There is no proof that competition drives costs down.
The insurance company has always tried to keep costs low. Medicare and veterans policies should be transferred to the insurance company.
niwsrekal 2 years ago
to niwsrekal
dude, is this sarcasm?
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
Right.
The HMO's work like a cartel. They're all in bed together, and there's nothing to stop them. They work like a monopoly.
silkysausage 2 years ago
So how would deregulation, allowing for increased competition, be a bad thing? On the other hand the people in this video seem to think that a public option is the answer. I don't think it's that cut and dry. The majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford insurance on top of their other bills. A PU could possibly drive costs down, but people like me STILL wouldn't be able to aford it! I'm barely making it paycheck to paycheck. So what option do I have?
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
sedatedlife18
Democratic Policy Committee:
"Indeed, deregulation of the banking industry serves as a powerful example -- of why rules and standards for the health insurance industry are necessary..."
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
I'm assuming you're refering to the mortgage bubble bursting. In which case you should be aware that it was INCREASED regulations forcing banks to give sub-prime loans to "high risk" consumers that caused most of what we know as the "housing collapse".
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Oh, right. Banks didn't write as many high risk loans as they could and sell them as mortgage-backed securities to maximize their profits. Oh, no. They were forced to write loans for more than customers could afford and for more than the property was worth.
obrien333 2 years ago
Did I not say most? I understand that banks were greedy, and that had a good deal to do with the mortgage collapse, but without the interference of the government regulations in the first place not ONE sub-prime loan would have ever been issued.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
sedatedlife18 Prolific predator greed requires MORE regulation, not less
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
You apparently need to re-read my comment.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
sedatedlife18 And BTW, greed is not a human right
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Yeah you sure do because now you're putting words in my mouth. Oh and one more thing... since we agree that greed isn't a human right, then why are we arguing about wealth redistribution to help subsidize health care which also happens NOT to be a human right?
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
sedatedlife18 Guess you never heard of "bundling" ? I have some deregulated swampland I'd like to sell you
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
It's now quite obvious that you need to re-read my comment, or at the very least educate yourself. How many sub-prime loans do you think were issued before the regulations put in place? Very few because lenders knew that problems could easily arise. In 1998 a man stood in front of Congress and testified to the fact that if we did not remove the current regulations on the mortgage industry that we would eventually see a collapse. Hmm I wonder if he was right....
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
sedatedlife18 google mortgage bundling and securitization to find out how the mortgage/banking collapse actually came about.
Yankhadenough 2 years ago
Over here health insurance is automatically deducted from every paycheck. That means if an employer pays you the bare minimum to survive they need to pay you more, otherwise they won't find anyone to work for them.
The problem with low taxes, no mandatory health insurance, etc. is, you can afford to live on very little pay and therefore your employer can afford to pay you very little, and so they will.
That's why your wages have been stagnant for over thirty years...
OolTube02 2 years ago
look at how people just left when they started singing ....
public option? why don't they talk about how it's gonna cause skyrocketing (already highly exaggerated) health insurance rates?
hey if it worked for the housing market .... lets do it for healthcare ...
then we have there houses and there medicine ..... the US Government is EVIL .....
notNEWW 2 years ago 2
dude, try to check out some videos on comparison of the health care system in developed countries, there is bunch of them on youtube.
your 'skyrocketing hi rates' imagination is based on nothing.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
dude i'm all for kids and old folks getting healthcare ... i haz compassion i work in healthcare ...
but you elude to other developed countries .... please provide examples and i shall provide insight as to why .. e