Bill Maher smacks around some neocons

[padude64]

Goood job Bill! These republicans especialy the evangelicals are idiots and I will debate these morons nyday!

[PrinceSamanti]

PING PONG

[RzzRBladez]

So, when ur in a titty bar, u needa leave now, so they follow u home?

Dam I should try that^^

[boomtao]

That was such a great monologue!

[CoolStoryBrosauce]

This video was recorded with a microwave.

[TheHorta]

It sounds like Bill Maher, but the single pixel where his head should be makes me question.

[johnediamond]

jews 4 maher...

[Albyiscool]

hows that war going Maher? Oh wait, we won.

[Dreamline78]

@Albyiscool You're deluding yourself if you can call that a victory. Anyway in order for a war to be "won", a war must have been declared, and the losing side must surrender. Even if you can claim that victory, at what cost? Over 4,000 troops dead, a spiraling deficit, a strained military, and a loss of focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where our focus should have been all along. You probably believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Yeah, that's why we wage war. To win. As if that was ever the question. And that other war, you know, Afghanistan, is going nowhere. Congratufuckinglations.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

You'd be surprised. Most American wars in the 20th century were not fought to be won. Afghanistan is another example of a war which our politicians don't care to win. When was the last time you heard Obama talk about victory?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool So the war in Iraq was successful? You really need to stop saying "we won", because the American gov't and Defence did not accomplish much of what was planned; the banner hanging behind as he was making that speech on the hangar ship or whatever, should have said "Mission Failed". Many experts on this have stated that it would have been better if the yankies stayed at home instead of waging this sad parody of an international politics display.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Did not accomplish what exactly? Finding WMD's? That was clearly not as important as simply getting Saddam out of power, since he had been such a pain the in ass to the US for years now. Over the long term if we can see Iraq as a stable ally in the region, it will be considered a success

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Many of the arguments for going there in there was that the US had to "liberate the Iraqi people", blah blah blah, lots of American ideological hog-wash. I mean, just listen to Maher's points on this. It was carried out very poorly. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, lots of civilian causalties from US bomb raids, riots, etc. On the short-term scale, the war was a disaster. I agree that it's good to have Hussein out of the way, and to see some stability in the area.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Abu Ghraib can't be considered US policy, because the soldiers there were court marshaled for their actions. GITMO is not specific to Iraq, but the greater War on Terror. "Lots" of civilian casualties from US actions are nothing compared to what the insurgents committed on a daily basis: the US avoided civilian casualties, while the insurgents actively sought them out.

I don't like the Iraq War not because it was unsuccessful (it wasn't) but because we were too generous to Iraq.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Who did the killing?

37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.

9%. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.

36%. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

11%. Unknown agents (11%).

Wikipedia - Iraq Body count project

One of the primary reasons that US military operations blow so much, is that the military has no respect for civilians. Top ranking military executives are too concerned with getting the job done quickly

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

First of all, I suggest a more official source than wikipedia. Second of all, you realize that insurgents routinely attacked US troops in crowded civilian areas in order to draw fire towards civilians

And you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. If you studied US military operations in depth, you would know that civilian casualties are huge concern especially in counterinsurgency operations where the public needs to be won over. I feel like you are basing this off nothing

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Wikipedia was not my primary source - it was the Iraq Body Count project. Don't know what a more official source would be. American state sources?

If civilians casualties are a huge concern to the US military, why do they kill much more civilians than... anyone? Insurgents using civilians as shield is no excuse to fire at will. I have not studied US operations a tad, but I have provided you with some statistics - who's based on nothing? And regarding Abu Graib - google "Milgram"

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Oh, I didn't realize the US has a state media.

Maybe because we are the only ones who use our military. Anytime shit goes down anywhere in the world, everyone expects the US to pick up the tab. The 90's are a prime example of this. And "fire at will"? Please. US soldiers are the best trained in the world and it is clear that they don't just mow down civilians anytime they are under pressure.

What is your point with "miligrim"?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Oh, there has been several occasions at which US soldiers acted extremely unprofessional, in the field, taped it and posted it here on YT. Breaking the law, ruining people's cars, dorking around, etc. Vigilants

The greatest pressure on the US to be "global cops" is provided by Americans, it seems. "America must..." is often heard in debates on foreign affairs.

I did not write "miligrim". I was refering to The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures. Ever heard of that?

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Oh no! "Several" incidents! It must be a conspiracy. oh really? I'm sure that Americans loved getting shot at in Somalia for no reason, or having to restore order in Haiti in the 90's, or stop a genocide of Muslims in Bosnia. No, I'm sure the UN had no role in pushing the US to get involved in those places...

Think about it, what other countries are even CAPABLE of carrying out humanitarian and nation-building missions on their own?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool My point with Milgram is that his experiment was executed in the context of a large debate regarding whether American could have been folled into commiting the same atrocities that the German did under the influence of the charismatic Hitler. The question is "Are people either good or bad? Or can "good" people be lured into doing bad things?"

In the experiment, regular, everyday American civilians thought they were giving steadily larger voltages of eletrical shocks to test subjects

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Ok, I know what the experiment means, but what is its relation to Abu Ghraib? It seems you are insinuating that the soldiers were ordered to commit atrocities. "no reason to think that none of the high ranking jacks were involved", ummm except for the complete lack of evidence that they were!

The fact that they were punished for their actions and there is no evidence that they did so under any orders makes it clear that it was an isolated incident.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Why would carrying out humanitarian mission on one's own somehow be more respectable? And more important, would Iraq have been carried out if there was no oil there? As I said, viligance. And theft.

Abu Ghraib soldiers were in fact ordered to commit the atrocity of locking up "persons of interest" for no legal reason.

And even if no high-ranking officers were involved, these things never would have happened if the UN was down there, not for so long. Officers can be held responsible

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

How much oil did we get from Iraq exactly? You are forgetting that the new government didn't even allow US companies to BID on the oil. And even if we were fighting for oil, why is wrong with that? It would make more sense than trying to spread democracy.

Ordered by whom? Do you have any proof of this? Good luck with that.

Are you saying soldiers are not held responsible? UN officers have committed crimes from time to time as well- but the UN also does a lousy job.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool What, do you think that some sgt. came up with the idea of arresting radoms on sight, or came with the instructions on who to take in? Of course not. No need for proof of that.

Innocent people were imprisoned without process for long stretches of time, fact. Even if it did not come from somewhere high on the ladder, someone up there is responsible. That's the concept of a military. If your army doesn't obey you, it's irresponsible to use it.

The military system is don't ask don't

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Um, its not inconceivable. Anyone can come up with that plan, and if they feel like they can get away with it then they go for it. Some people just let that authority get to their head and abuse it. What would the US possibly gain from ordering soldiers to arrest randoms and abuse them?

Yes, people are held accountable- those who committed the actions and those who failed to keep track of them.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool It would make more sense to fight oil out of a country than to try to spread democracy? What an un-American thing to say. How is it so?

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Our entire economy runs on oil. our entire military runs on oil. America's standard of living is directly related to oil. Energy is a national interest, and the military is meant to defend vital American interests. So it makes perfect sense to use it to defend natural resources. Whereas spreading democracy is costly, time-consuming, risky, not guaranteed to work and doesn't affect us directly.

And "suspicious" isn't enough. You need solid proof that high officials were involved.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool No, I don't need any proof; as I said, either, some few officers are specifically responsible for surveilling human rights and regulations being followed, which means that he/she must be held responsible, or there is no officer(s) specifiacally responsible, which means that the US army is an incompetent system, and should stay the hell out of foreign affairs.

Even if proof was needed, I wouldn't be the one needing it, cause I'm not responsible for following up, but I hope someone is

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

The soldiers who committed the acts were punished and those who were supposed to be supervising them were likely punished as well. what do you want, the President of the United States to be punished as well?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Likely? Look who's talking about proof! If so, their punishments were hardly anything near a de-ranking (probably has a better word in English, but military terminology is not a strength of mine).

I wouldn't be the only one to believe that Bush deserves punishment. Or, more credibly, his corrupt administration. But I don't.

I want to see an America that pulls its shit together and ACT like it's the greatest nation.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

or we can just withdraw all our troops from around the world and all funding from the IMF, UN, World Bank, NATO, etc...and then see how much the world needs us?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool What an American thing to say. Can't take any critisism without drawing up a line between "us" and "them". As if America does not need the world!

The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and so follows great responsibility. So why does the American government show less responsibility than other nations, particularly on the military level?

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

Less responsibility? Are you kidding? Every peacekeeping or humanitarian mission around the world has a great deal of involvement by the US. In every international organization the US is a leader, yet whenever we decide to use our military to follow our own interests, like every other country, we are painted as irresponsible by the rest of the world because we are not following THEIR interests.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool "use our military to follow our own interests, like every other country"?? Come on. That's clearly not the case. Every country does not use the military to follow their own interests, not directly.

The question is: "Is the US involved proportionally resource-wise and effort-wise in these missions?" What would be an interesting one. I think that if Scandinavia has the amount of population and resources that the US has got, it would kick US rump in just about anything.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

You must be joking, right? That is the whole reason countries have militaries- to defend their interests. Countries that oppose US military actions often do it out of self interest. The Germans and French had arms and oil deals with Iraq, so naturally they opposed the US invasion.

If Scandinavia had the population of the US, it would be an utter failure as a nation. Socialistic govts never work on a large scale. Scandinavia DOES have resources, yet is still not comparable to the US.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Scandinavia socialistic?! Haha, you dont even know what socialism is! And its funny how 3/4 scandinavian countries are richer then the US. Sweden has the 2 most competitive economy in the world, higher then the US.

Not to mention that Scandinavia always ranks well above USA in viritually all elements of the welfare of a nation. Ive never seen USA break into top 10 in these "best nation" rankings.

You should know things before you write random crap :P

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Richer than the US? Please. The US is still in an economic downturn I might remind you (precisely because we are pursuing socialist policies). But notice how I said "socialistic" not "socialist". I realize that Europe is not entirely socialist- but the government plays a much larger role, there are many more social programs and redistributive programs

"Best nation" rankings by what- Newsweek? Oh, boo hoo. They said CUBA had one of the highest standards of living- how are they credible?

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Scandinivia has been richer then US for quite some time in nominal GDP, it has nothing to do with the economic downturn (which we are all in).

The crisis was caused by DEregulation of banks and wallstreet, rightwing policies.

And the fact that you just said that parts of Europe are socialists proves my point; you dont know what it is. Venezuela is socialistic, not France etc :)

Gov does play a larger role, which is one reason as to why our livingstandard is well above yours.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Bullshit! The recession has been worst in the US because that is where the housing market collapsed. Big govt policies failed to bring the US back, while the rest of Europe is cutting back on govt. The housing market collapsed BECAUSE of govt policies that forced lending to people who couldn't pay back loans.

Socialism has broad meaning- there are many shades of it as with any other economic system.

You can afford bigger govt than us because you don't have to pay for 300 million people

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Just because you started the recesion doesnt mean its worst for you. Look at Greece, Ireland, Island etc. We are all in this ditch. Thats how the economy works.

The housing market collapsed because replicans DEregulated the lendingmarket, thus making ppl buy houses they couldnt really afford.

And Socialism has to do with gov _owning_ most/many corprations which isnt the case outside of Venezuela/Cuba etc. Sole regulations are a shade of capitalism.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Greece's problems aren't just from the recession, but from their own problems with government spending. The US has had a slow recovery because we have relied on government funds to restart the economy, and so far all of it has been wasted.

Okay, so assume they deregulated. Why would banks lend money to people who couldn't pay them back? How could they possibly have made money off of that?

And yet govts in Europe control whole industries- like health care, How is that not socialism?

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Greece had issues but Ireland was argubly more the the right then the US and is now in deep problems. Same with Island. If one large country goes, so goes all its tradingpartners.

Your market isnt going anywhere. There is no funding for jobs. Noone is hiring. All countries use more or less stimulus to kickstart the economy. Where else is the money gonna come from? This is textbook ecomomy. Besides, didnt the stimulus save 4 million jobs? Not sure about the number but close to that

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

What "whole industries" does nations in Europe control apart from healthcare? Wtf :D

Accoring to your logic (socialised medicin = socialist country) that would make all other advanced nation in the world socialists...

I hope you realise how silly that sounds. Read up on socialism casue you seem to have a very distorted view on what it really is.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Health care is a huge industry. Many countries have in the past, or currently, nationalized important industries like energy and transport. State control of media outlets (BBC for one), and a heavy state involvement in education, to name a few. The point is there is much more government involvement than in the US

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

There is more government involvement in EU no question, but there is no nationalization of any industry apart from the public sector. What countries have nationalized energy or transport? In important industries its often benefictial, esp for small nations to have a state owned corp competeing with private corps to secure energysupplies etc. But thats very far from nationalizing an entire industy.

BBC is a very small part of media outlets and guarantees objective and unbiased news

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

But the public sector is larger precisely because more industries are nationalized than in the US. Britain and France, for a few, have nationalized industries in the past, only to re-privatize them.

BBC? Small part of media? C'mon

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Ok tell me, which entire industries are nationalized? There are NONE other then the public sector. US is bailing out car corprations and your flaming EU for having nationalized industries? :P

Infant mortality rates does not count abortions. Even if it did, we have more abortions here so it would matter. What does matter is that US ranks 29th in the world in Infant mortalitys.

There are 50 mil ppl classified as poor in the US. You cant talk your way out of that.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

"Other than the public sector"- you're using circular reasoning...if an industry is nationalized by the govt, it is by definition part of the public sector.

The EU has done the same in the past- and I never said the US wasn't heading towards a socialist model. That's part of the reason why our economy is still so weak.

Yes I can. The poverty rate in the US is better than in other EU countries, like Britain and Belgium. Even the poor in the US can afford cars and housing.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Again, there are no industry is nationalized by the govt. Public sector includes HC, schools and care. If the state has shares in a company (which is very very rare and only applies to some countries in some important sectors) then they are not in the public sector since its a corparation competing with others on the same market.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

And health care is an industry is it not? Or do you think it suddenly stops becoming one once the govt takes it over.

That's what I've been saying this whole time- you wait longer because they don't have infinite HC to give out. In the US, most people don't pay for their HC. The old, poor and disabled get govt care, and most of the rest get it through their job. And yet we pay half as much in taxes- & it does matter who pays. When people keep their own $, they spend better than the govt

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Yea but ALL other industrialized countries have govt run HC. Your throwing rocks in a glasshouse by complaining saying that EU nations has "taken over industries" (which isnt the case outside what i described as the public sector" when you have probably more govt ownership over your private corps.

Same thing goes for US, you dont have unlimited HC either. Private corps dont have infinitive resources either. But my point is, thats all OK since we pay about half of what you do.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

I love how you generalize EU as one nation.. Anyway, which EU nation has taken over car companies in modern times? Cant think of any...

And i couldnt care less about Britain or Belgium. Those are rather poor countries with large income disparities, much like the US. Wether poor ppl can afford cars and housing is irrelivent, they are still classified as poor using the same measurement as in all other industrialized nations, and relies on the govt for food...

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Um, that's actually what you've been doing. You've been comparing the EU to the United States, and I have pointed out that is misleading because it is a collection of 27 different countries.

"Poor countries"? Okay, let's be clear. None of the countries we are dealing with are "poor"- they are all among the most developed in the world. And it is completely relevant, because even if the govt decides to hand out food stamps- if they can still afford cars, are they really "poor"?

[kick2004]

@Mjeeeh Bhahahahaha xDDD Did you really just say that Belgiums poor? Bwahaha WTF? Dude, check what you're saying on wikipedia or something before posting....

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Newsweek is only one of many "best nation rankings". HDI index is another, where USA ranks 13th.

UN made a "best nation to live in" ranking and US rank 12th.

11th in Newsweek. and many more...

All counties ahead of you on that list have what you oversimplify as "big goverment". Thats no coincidence.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

You'll notice that most of those countries also only have a few million people and do not need to spend on a military- by contrast the US is the third largest country on earth (try to compare it to China and India) and must defend the entire West

Many of these rankings are subjective. They rank certain factors, like economy, not on how strong they are, but how "Fair" they are. Like health care- everyone could have shitty health care, but if its equally shitty it gains points

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Look up the rankings... Why would anyone seriously be subjective towards USA? Really? What sense does that make? Are you really that paranoid? Its not like the people making them have any say in which country is best, its the point system that decides.

Anyways, they measure all elements of the countries. In terms of HC they measure the quality of care, avalability etc. Everything. If 15% cant even afford the HC system, thats obviously a minus on avalability.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

At the core of every ranking is a jealously of the US. The US is preeminent and indispensable in terms of international politics, military power, economic strength, and culture. No other country can claim predominance in that many categories- and we have held this position for at least the past 50 years, if not the past century

Organizations may say that the US has lousy health care or whatever- yet we have a system based on freedom that doesn't ration out health care w/ a bureaucracy

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Your saying all rankings are biased? You are a very deluded man

And the US isnt even close to being the richest as ive shown you, so why would there be any jelousy? Your indeed the most influential nation, due to your 300 mil population, but the more ppl doesnt make a country a better one.

Insurance companies are the bureaucracy of the US healthcare. Plus its heavily regulated by the gov. And rationing? what the... Have you been watching Glenn Beck?

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

I didn't say all rankings were biased, but I'm saying they are mostly subjective- and yes some are biased.

Shown me? What evidence have you shown me? You only said it, but did not prove it. Yes, you're right. Often it is medium sized countries- like the ones in Europe- of several million which are historically successful. Huge ones like India and China are still massively poor- yet the US has managed to be very rich for over 100 years.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Why would anything be subjective? Thats paranoid nonsens.

Show you what? Thats a commonly known fact? What you didnt think US was one of the richest did you?

Just because small nations dominate "best nation rankings" doesnt mean that large ones have a disadvantage. What disadvantage would that be? Japan, England, France, US, Germany are all successful large nations.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

If you are talking about size, Germany and France are not even on the same par as the US. The US is roughly ten times bigger than these countries.

Availability is a factor, but nobody in the US is turned away from an ER. And it makes perfect sense that better health care costs more- and those who are willing to pay get more of it. Yet there is still a minimum level of care in the US- without having to redistribute it all

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

I hope you know fully well how down right sickening the american HC system was and still is. Kids with preconsisting illnesses were denied insurance, people were thrown out on the streets. Tensofthousands dies every day cause their outside the system.

This is unthinkable in every single western country apart from USA. You cant help but question the morality of americans...

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Of course! Children thrown out on the streets! Hospitals selling the poor into slavery! oh the humanity!

Let me ask you; if someone has a pre-existing health condition, what exactly is there to insure against? Basically they just want free money for being sick- it makes perfect sense that a private business would choose not to lose money.

The USA is very different from other western countries. I could just as easily cite horror stories from other countries' health care systems.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Well, the rest of the world arent okay with people being denied healthcare cause of conditions they nor anyone else control. Its a matter of how to treat your fellow countrymen.

And you could prolly find some rare random mistreatment in any country. But only in USA is there a systematic killing of 10s of thousands every day. Not to mention all the 40-50 something milion who cant get proper care, cause they cant afford it.

How do you sleep at night, seriously?

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

In the US, they have govt programs for this. Businesses aren't charities, its as simple as that.

Oh please. 50 million is a number that was essentially fabricated. Out of those millions are 1. illegal immigrants, 2. people who already qualify for some govt health care but don't know it, 3. people who choose not to buy health care

So Obama thought the solution was the force everyone in the country to buy health care, or force every business to provide it to employees- that is not right

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

How is that 50 mil fabricated? 50 milion is also the number of people who gets foodstamps. 50 million relies on the government for food. One might think you are a third world country. Its unimaginable.

Forcing insurance on ppl isnt nearly gonna fix the costissues but it looks set to help atleast. Fact is, the healthcare reform isnt nearly as comprehensive as it should be, considering your huge debt problem.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

With regards to health care: private business is always more effective than government. The fact that it is still heavily regulated is part of the reason why health care is so costly in the US (another reason is because we are the ones who produce all the medicine and we pay for quality care)

"Rationing" is not just a scary word- it is an economic fact. When you have more people than you have health care, naturally you must ration it either to those who can pay or evenly distribute it

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Private buissness is driven buy profit which makes it vastly less effective.

The best healthcare in the world in terms of medical results are in Sweden. And yet Sweden spends about half of what US does on HC. Interesting huh?

Producing means profit, not losses? I dont follow your logic. Besides, there are plenty of nations producing alot more medicine per capita then the US.

And there can never be any rationing, as the more ppl who need HC = the more resoures are spent on it

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Economics 101- markets are more efficient than centrally planned economies. Unless the government knows all the information about every consumer and firm in the economy, there is no way for it to plan an economy with the same efficiency.

interesting because all the drugs are developed in the US and exported around the world. And how do you measure "medical results" exactly? Do American doctors simply fail to heal people?

But there are limited govt resources- therefore they must ration

[Mjeeeh]

Markets are always more efficient, but not when it comes to HC, since unhealthy people cost money. Private corps have no interest in providing universal healthcare so there will be many who are denied/given crappy care. People get sicker and end up costing society much more in the end.

All drugs are eveloped in the US?

91% of all worlds medicine is exported from Western Europe

From wordmapper(.)org*

Your really clueless arent you? :)

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Health care is a relatively inefficient industry, true, but not for the reason you. Insurers are actually at a disadvantage because they must provide insurance for customers, but they do not know how health the customers are. The customers can easily exploit this ignorance.

Its not that I don't trust your colorful maps, I think you are missing my point. drugs are DEVELOPED in the US and sold in the rest of the world.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Healthcare is only inefficient in the hands of private corps Stats show that you pay more then twice as much as most other nations without having better care nor better coverage

I dont get your whole "all drugs are developed in the US" point? If 91% of the profit goes to West EU then that means a huge majority of drugs are exported from West EU to the rest of the world. If the US develo alot of drugs then why does US drugcorps have a patethic marketshare and profit in comparasion?

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Many of the problems due to health are from govt intervention. They don't allow insurance companies to compete over state lines, which would lower prices. Medicare/Medicaid is too big, and most doctors won't accept that insurance because there is too much bureaucracy associated with it.

But universal health care won't help. In the US, the state of Massachusetts has had universal health care for a few years- and costs have actually increased.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

You are combining multiple countries and comparing it to one? The US is a country with the most major pharmaceutical companies. Of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies by sales in 2008, 7 of them were based in the US. No other country is close

The fact is, you can't have a finite amount of doctors, then add millions of patients without adding new doctors. There is definitely going to be a shortage, and therefore price increases. Increasing coverage isn't the same as lowering costs

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

US has 300 million people. Ireland has 6, Sweden 9, Denmark 5 etc. Ofcourse you will have more pharmaceutical companies. But per capita its way different. Like my colourful map shows. 91% of the profits per capita goes to western EU nations. That same site show the 20 nations making most profit of of medicine and US wasnt even on that list.

Increased coverage does help lower costs long term cause more ppl get preemptive care, thus making less ppl ill.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Now you think population is an issue! Its not that we have more, we have more profitable ones. And that applies to every industry. THAT is why the US is richer than any other country.

The 50 mil number is greatly exaggerated in the ways I have just mentioned. The people who get welfare and food stamps are also the ones who get FREE health care by the govt (which is bankrupting us by the way). Free health care is how we GOT this debt problem in the first place!

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

You dont have more profitable medicinal corps, thats why 91 bloody % of the medicinal profits goes to westen EU, are you even reading? Theres no pride in having the most pharmaceutical corps in the world. That doesnt equal profit. What matters is having the most pharmaceutical corps in the world PER CAPITA. Evidently EU dominates in this respect.

And the US isnt even remotly close to being the richest country in the world. Your living in some kind of fantasyworld.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

You showed me a colorful map- I didn't see 91% anywhere. It is a fact that almost half of the top 10 profitable pharmaceutical companies are American however. And also remember that the only way the EU can compare to the US is by combining the economies of 27 developed countries and comparing it to 1.

In what way?? I honestly can't imagine why you would say that. The US GDP is greater than the next three countries combined.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Huh? it clearly says 91% goes to EU. How many companies are American is irrelivant. How many companies per capita is what matters, in which you clearly loose out big time.

The wealth of a nation is measured in GDP per capita... China is set to be the largest economy in the world soon, but they are still very poor.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

"Medical results" is simply how large chance there is for a procedure to be sucessfull and how good the end result is. American doctors/equipment arent bad if you have the money, its just that its better in Sweden.

And rationing? Its in the law that healthcare doesnt have a limit on its resources. If resources are needed they will be funded, no matter what. No such thing as rationing exists, in my part of the world.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

But you realize that government resources are inherently limited, right? They only take a certain percentage for taxes and most people would ideally want the most health care, right? There is not an infinite amount of health care, so the basic definition of rationing is taking a limited resource and distributing it.

The stimulus has had terrible results for the US. Obama claimed it would keep unemployment under 8%, instead it went almost 10%. That alone destroys all credibility.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Healthcare isnt restricted. Healthcare costs vary from year to year depending on how costly it is. HC never has a limited budget. If HC is expensive one year then more taxmoney will be spent on it. There is never any limits on HC.

Obama overpromised and underdelivered with the stimulus but that doesnt make it a failiure. Injecting money into a shrinking economy always helps, more or less. The stimulus halted the recession and saved like 4 milion jobs.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

So you're saying everybody in your country has all the health care they could ever want or need, and there is so much of it to go around that anybody could go anywhere today, simply request any kind of care they want, and they would easily get it? And I love how your solution is "more tax money". Governments are notoriously ineffective, so more money spent inevitably means more bureaucracy, and more money wasted.

Most of that stimulus money went to liberal interest groups- or was lost.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Yeah. If you have issue you can walk into any hospital and get whatever treatment, prescriptions you need. Why would there be any restrictions on treatments?

Gov isnt ineffective when it comes to HC and stats back that up. Sweden maintains the best HC in the world in terms of results. Overall health in US is amongst the worst in the western world. Same with infant mortality rates etc.

All that yet all other western nations spend about half of what you spend on your HC.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

Because you can't have millions of people demanding as much free care as they want without there being SOME shortage, whether or supplies or doctors. You're going to tell me that doctors have no problem dividing their time among millions of patients?

Again, you are saying subjective comments like "best results" without backing them up. And infant mortality happens to count factors that have nothing to do with health care, like crime, abortion, etc.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

There are no shortages, unless some magical supervirus were to show up. And even if somehow there were to be a long queue on some treatment, you can just walk into any EU nation you like, get the treatment there and the Gov pays full expenses for it.

The same shortages can happen to private healthcare aswell obviously, even if its more dynamic.

Look the stats up for yourself, you seem to be in need of some contemporary info.

[Albyiscool]

@Mjeeeh

It is common knowledge that wait times are greater in countries with universal health care, and the care is less flexible because it has to deal with the needs of so many people. And the govt doesn't pay for it...you do, with your excessively high tax rates.

But private health care can deal with shortages by raising prices- supply and demand evens everything out and markets are efficient with resources. The same is not true with the govt.

[Mjeeeh]

@Albyiscool

Waiting times are slightly longer if you want free HC. If not, theres always private care avalible.

I dont care wether i pay for HC with taxes or cash. What matters is how much. I pay about half of what you do per year for better care. Not to mention everyone gets it, no matter income. Thats hardly "efficient with resources".

I dont see how you can just accept such absurd prices.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool for the actions of their subordinates regardless of whether they have specifically ordered it, but if that ever happens in the US, it sure as hell doesn't show.

And I don't think that the "innocent until otherwise proven"-concept goes in a "don't ask, don't tell" system.

Some alternavites would be to:

1. Wait for UN, taking forevermore

2. Carry out the operation more properly, and leave the oil behind. Now this last one really could have been a great idea for the US.

[Albyiscool]

@Pomme843

I'm confused as to why you chose to use "don't ask don't tell" in this context- and are you trying to say that people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent?

1. Waiting for the UN guarantees failure. In recent years US involvement has been attributed to success, but when the UN takes over we lose all progress. This is true in Somalia, Haiti, etc.

2. That is what happened. The US is not currently drilling any Iraqi oil.

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool tell, as I said, there hasn't been any official consequences for high-ranking officers. Of course there's confidentiality, but the blood seem to be shed from the floor only, and with high publicity. None are guilty until otherwise proven, but all of this is suspicious. If the abuse at Abu Ghraib was unheard of for any high-ranking officer, then the system is weak, and if there is no officer who had the responsibility for keeping the system strong, then you might as well discard it

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool Many of these people did, under the command of scientists, give these "test subjects" (what they thought were) lethal dosages of electric shock. Zimbardo has a term for a similar phenomenon, he calls it "The Lucifer Effect".

My point is that regular people can be conditioned into doing some freaky stuff, so there's no reason to hold religious belief that atrocities originate from the rank and file. In other words: The fact that some of the guards/soldiers were court marshalled

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool , is no reason think that none of the high-ranking jacks were involved.

Let's face it, Abu Graib and Guantanamo were politcal and administrative catastrophies.

Now, what is an "official source"? Wouldn't know, English is not my primay language. Examples? And there's no such thing as US state media, is there?

[Pomme843]

@Albyiscool , so much that it actually takes longer. They don't respect security routines; I heard that many US soldiers are more afraid of their own bombers that for the emeny forces. Friendly casualties occur much more frequently in US operations.

[Basehad]

I can't believe how much I hate American politics. You idiots are always like "Bill Maher slams some neocons", "Bill O'reilly devours a liberal bitch", you know, "Glenn Beck obliterates atheism". Both sides are equally repulsive. How can you have a debate, if you're gonna act like it's a physical fight? Where I come from, children are taught quite early that discussions aren't about winners and losers...

[Forestbender1114]

@Basehad Well said.

[coffee396]

a neocon is a person that has a black and white view on the world, for example "if you're poor, it's because you don't work" It has been proved that conservatism is a mental illness, there's a very serious study about it, it's very interesting, they tell you why they plug their ears and scream when they wanna make a point, their intolerance for deferences, the rejection of homosexuality because of their own sexual issues. I see it, they can't fool me.

[eugdog106]

you are a buffoon.

[chivazrigol]

Its sad when the truth has to be spoken by comedians.

[marquoth]

@chivazrigol In a way I think it's a good thing. Comedians are more able to be "brave" about what they say than the rest of us. After they've spoken out first, others will follow suit.

[chivazrigol]

@marquoth Like the mindless sheep we are.

[oANWARoo]

@chivazrigol SOOOO SAD

[sunspotpixie]

The only "cowards" are those who think that America is somehow immune to criticism and law. Even our own laws. To embrace the enemies tactics is to become the enemy.

Many of you who claim to be conservatives nowadays wouldn't know conservatism if it bit you on your rear-end. They baited the hook, and you swallowed it. Played you and your fears for fools.

You've been had by people who've tricked you with their jingoism, in order to further an extreme agenda that threatens all of our futures.

[coffee396]

Bravo, very nice post,

Chapeau bas Monsieur, chapeau bas.

[Iceman3291]

Halftrac, How the fuck can you call Maher a coward when he speaks his mind every week on his show? Why don't you go back to watching 24 hour Fox News channel, and jerking off to pictures of Glen Beck, Hannity, and that fat fucking moron Limbaugh. How about you stop being so ignorant and grow the fuck up.

[SecularTalk]

history degree*

[Mexmando]

Dead right !! The war is about OIl and fighting Israels battles with its neighbours....Bush is surrounded by war mongering zionists like Krystol Pearl and Wolfowitz and does their bidding, they love the fact he's as thick as a horses dick. they tell him its great idea and he's suckered in hook line and sinker. Come on America wakey wakey

[fluidoz]

Bill hits the nail on the head. You wonder how anyone listens to the likes of Cheaney and Kristol after they've been so wrong about so many things for so long.

[rikospandex]

He's a genius with huge balls, and a razor sharpe wit wielded with bush burning acuaracy, no wonder his words melt the soft ice cream that american walmart gangsters, like ededaemegeh have for brains.

[HiwayHauler68]

lol husbands :)

[killerkwal]

Truth hurts ebegaemgeh

[ebedaemegeh]

Queer.

[mikester76]

shut the fuck up

[userjak0ff]

thats it? thats all you have to say? what did Mr. Maher defragment your brain. the only thing you said was that your a homophobe. and the both of you shut the fuck up, unless you have something intellectual to say.

[BtsetcDotCom]

i do think your name says it all for u... u fag!

[ScissorHand26]

Your only response is to infer his sexuality? Do you seriously consider calling someone homosexual to be an insult?