This this idiot say that He wanted the Boys in the Hood to come up with their own program to uplift themselves out of the ghetto. That's just like asking a blind man to tell me the time. If the knew how to uplift themselves they wouldn't be in poverty. Uncle Tom Sowell is so pathetic. He wasted all his money on college. Did he pay for his College education or did he get welfare.
"Dur! Black people in the ghetto are too stupid and helpless to change their situation! The fact that you think differently Thomas Sowell makes you and uncle Tom!"
I THINKS THAT BLACKS IN THE HOOD.WANT TO HAVE A BETTER LIFE FOR THEMSELVES. BLACKS ARE STIGMATIZES BY WHITES, AND ARE ALSO OPPRESSED. UNCLE TOM SOWELL IS A SELLOUT.
Anyone who thinks the Candain health care system is the cats ass, hasnt it used recently. Yes, serious conditions are dealt with farely well but the rest sucks ass. Wait times are bad, you get the boot out the door in record time and hospitals arent getting the funding they would like.
"Blacks Against Obama" Uploaded by daswann14 on Aug 19, 2011
"Maxine Waters talking to the black caucus has been in the news and given some steam to this issue, so I figured I'd weigh in. Suffice it to say I am totally disgusted with his utter lack of care toward African-Americans, and thinks that it sets an awful and dangerous precedent."
Ceyseau and Inept Leaders
......and BO singing Al Green tunes, or calling upon Reverend Al Sharpton will not dupe this segment of Black America.
"Blacks Against Obama" Uploaded by daswann14 on Aug 19, 2011
"Maxine Waters talking to the black caucus has been in the news and given some steam to this issue, so I figured I'd weigh in. Suffice it to say I am totally disgusted with his utter lack of care toward African-Americans, and thinks that it sets an awful and dangerous precedent."
Ceyseau and Inept Leaders
......and BO singing Al Green tunes, or calling upon Reverend Al Sharpton will not dupe this segment of Black America.
Is Sowell seriously trying to say that welfare creates more poverty and because of this cycle democrats get the poor vote?
You'd have to be psychotic to deny that welfare reduces poverty, in the 1800s 30-50% of people were in poverty, in 1959 it was 23% then after the Great society it shrank and by now is 15%.
Just look at the world, the countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare, and that's not including benefits.
@AndroidPolitician but it's at the hands of working people ... Thomas Sowell is saying ... if you keep this "welfare" up ... people will just say ... fuck it .. and not have any ambition to work ... the Gov. is taking care of me ... this is not America ... and it will not be America ... welfare is good for people out of work and Looking for work ... it's not for lifers as congress likes to be .. Term limits on Congress .. Term Limits on Welfare ...
If you're trying to say people on welfare are "subsidized over the poverty line" well it's not true, poverty is calculated as either food intake or international incomes which don't include government benefits.
And as for dependency even without limits on welfare the median time on was about 3-4 years, there is depdency in the sense that people with prior problems are dependent but thinking welfare in-itself makes people unwilling to work is an irrational belief.
@AndroidPolitician your name suits you well...i nor anyone else can change your mind on the subject. Not sure where you're from ... but i know a lot of people who take advantage of the system "welfare"...and yes the subsidized over the poverty line has been increased under Obama ... it's cuz the Democrats "Obama" will keep a vote ... just like more spending for our Military will get Republican votes, alot of people on welfare tend to stay on welfare...Detroit MI, great example .. look into it
@AndroidPolitician said, ["I'm not sure if you missed what I said but that's literally impossible by definition of how poverty is measured, say tommorow welfare benefits are $100k a month (and people have the same non-welfare income), they would still be considered poor."]
That's exactly right. Poverty is considered "low" earned income; low wages or salary. Someone not working and living off of 2 million dollars in the bank is considered "poor" by our bloated moronic government officials.
PS. Even people who win the lottery are still considered poor and remain qualified to receive the welfare they're already collecting, because lottery winnings are not considered income, they're considered liquid assets. The gov officials KNOW that these people, who are ignorant on how to create and keep wealth, will be broke again in just a short number of years. This is almost always the case where they take the lump sum.
@LucisFerre1 If in the USA you choose the full payout immediately rather than the extended payout plan, you get a reduced amount, and then the government taxes you ontop of that, and then you also take a tax hit at the end of the fiscal year because the winnings put you into a higher tax bracket. I'd say they damn well better give you welfare if you win the lottery, because they've basically just stolen half your winnings!
@AndroidPolitician Poverty being reduced by the lowered prices in products thanks to the free market is not the same as poverty being reduced by welfare programs. The very fact that if you manage to get even the shittiest job after being on welfare, you immediately lose your welfare benefits is proof enough that the welfare system keeps you poor by punishing you for getting a job.
A Negative Income Tax, where everyone gets a certain income ONTOP of anything earned is better.
People aren't rats that can only see short term incentives (ie taking away benefits for a job) they invest their welfare over the long term for a better life which is why universally whenever welfare is implemented or made more generous poverty is reduced.
@AndroidPolitician But you're wrong. People are irrational and make economic choices irrationally. They should be allowed to this, it is their right. It is not the right of some disaffected bureaucrat to determine outcomes. By making irrational choices you will soon learn the correct direction and make better choices. It's called "learning". Just like rats in a maze.
First of all evidence for both outcomes of welfare and biologically show that people invest their welfare for a better lives (the countries with the most benefits have the least poverty) and that people are evolved to act rationally but don't because of lack of information.
Second it's not the "bureaucrat" that decides, people overwhelming favor the programs and it's their money that they use to help others or themselves via the benefits.
@AndroidPolitician invest their welfare for better lives? what do you mean? How do you invest your welfare? Why is medicare, medicaid, and social security some of the biggest expenses in all modern countries if what you say is true, wouldnt there be no need because people are already investing in their welfare sufficiently on their own?
I think the real situation is people attempt to invest in what they think is best for them, but they think they are bullet proof and are not.
It's basic common sense, people save welfare to things like housing, education, surviving without a job etc. and then get better lives by attaining those things. It's why the countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare.
Medicare is the problem (Not SS which will give out 100% benefits until 2035) and it's because it has to subsidize an expensive and costly private system, if we had Medicare for all we would have a budget surplus.
@AndroidPolitician The average family of 4 in the US currently has about $4000 in savings, $200,000 of personal debt, and a $900,000 share of unfunded government liabilities. If you dropped the entire military budget to $0 you still could not balance the budget. Things are BAD. You have proof that all private systems are costly? No, just that the current one sucks. The canadian public health system sucks too. Rich foreigners often come to private US clinics for care. Why?
The Deficit for 2012 is $1 trillion and if the Bush tax cuts were removed and we had single-payer we would actually have a surplus. The current one is private and costs for private healthcare are rising much worse than Medicare.
Canada has better healthcare outcomes than the US (especially since tens of thousands don't die from lack of insurance) and the rate of people going to Canada from the US because of lack of care is just as high if not higher.
@AndroidPolitician No one in the US "dies" from "lack of insurance". All states have laws that life saving treatments MUST be provided regardless of ability to pay.
It is not federal law, but your statement reveals a lack of understanding of the US healthcare system.
That being said, I support a single payer system. Not for the reasons you do, I suspect. A single payer (or Japan's regulated cost model), is the only way to control the cost center...meaning, what the providers charge.
i do not know a lot about the regulated cost model but i do know that my dad works for a "regulated company" (bizarre mix of private+public) and they are extremely inefficient. none of them care about doing a good job because each year they just claim how much their expenses went up by and it gets paid. they also get a percentage return on equity for all of their expenses. this is a company that manages a section of the power grid, which ignores obvious efficiency improvements!
@AndroidPolitician From Wikipedia: "Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $561 billion OVER THE NEXT 10 years". The key data point here is that the amount of money is calculated over TEN YEARS, which means divide by 10. Note that 561 billion is far less than the shortfall, even for ONE year. Your message claiming that ending the Bush Tax Cuts will solve everything is built on obviously flawed information.
@AndroidPolitician regarding Canada, a place in which I have lived and used the health care facilities, the reason tens of thousands are not dying due to lack of insurance is that the population is 1/10th that of USA, and so only thousands are dying, but due to not having a family doctor or being put on a waiting list, of which there are many in Canada and very few in the US, especially for MRIs, which are critical for very serious health issues.
My main point was the budgetary effects of single-payer not the tax cuts.
Name a single person that has died in Canada because of waiting lists etc. a single person. Your experiences not withstanding Canada's healthcare outcomes are much better.
@AndroidPolitician ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!? People die on waiting lists by the hundreds! I went to school with one, but forget her last name. MRI wait times are a great example of an unnecessary wait time, and they are often critical in catching deadly diseases early. Currently the wait times in several regions of Canada and the EU are over a year. Google this: "Lower Mainland patients outraged over MRI waits".
@AndroidPolitician Why don't YOU name the person that died due to denial of medical care. The 45,000 figure comes from a heavily flawed Harvard study, that happens to be done by those who support Obama care. The study looks at 9000 surveys in which only 350 died but somehow came up with the 45,000 number. EMTALA alone guarantees that no one dies from denial of service. Everyone in this country is technically covered for emergency care. Try again.
Nataline Sarkisyan died because the insurer denied her a transplant because it costed too much. She is one of the 45,000 people who die a year.
That's how statistics and polling works you idiot, when polls ask who Americans will vote for the figures are usually very close to the elections, do those polls ask 100 million Americans? No they don't, they ask a sample size.
This is math middle school kids learn. The fact you, a grown adult doesn't know is appalling.
@AndroidPolitician Nope. The study is completely flawed and has been debunked. Look it up. Also thousands come to United States to get medical care they were otherwise denied in Canada. Try again kiddo.
You're probably thinking of a study before the Harvard one that had some criticisms but the Harvard one has had none. But if your argument is "it only got the information of a few thousand people" you are literally too stupid to argue and should look up what a sample size is.
No one is denied in Canada (which millions are in the US) they might come to the US because of weight times but people go to Canada because they are denied or because they can't afford it.
@AndroidPolitician Sarkisyan's case was thrown out when they tried to sue the insurance company. Try again.
And I told you to look up the refutation of your study. Not my problem that you're retarded.
Shirley Healy - was denied a life saving surgery and would have died had she not traveled to US to get surgery. Thousands of Canadians come here for treatment. Yep Canada so great! Try again retard.
So the fact they didn't win the lawsuit changes the fact that the insurance company killed her by refusing to do a surgery?
You are literally too retarded to argue, the "refutation" is not of the Harvard study (<------ did you catch that part? it's not the Harvard study) but a different one that came out earlier. No one has "refuted" the fact that 45,000 die every year from lack of health insurance.
@H1TMANactual a tiny minute number that means nothing...."Thousands" out of a population of 35 million is nothing..."Thousands" of American leave the country and search for other health care as-well...particularly advanced stem cell treatments and the like as well as for cheaper care that they could not afford in the US.
@AndroidPolitician The study is published by - Physicians for a national health program. No bias there DERP. It tracked 9000 subjects and then somehow ended up with the 45,000 number. Just 1 refutation? National Center for Policy analysis.
I already debunked your Sarkisyan hypothesis. Healy is not alive moron she died. I did name them - Shirley Healy. She got a life saving surgery here. You do understand the meaning of life saving don't you? Illiteracy is curable. Try again.
Wow really? Here let me list things I've already said:
- The NCPA is a conservative think tank (not a healthcare org) whose "refutation" is literally citing a republican congressman in Florida. That's it. Not even a study.
- Yes it used 9000 because that was a sample size, the fact that you don't know what a sample size is, STILL, is appalling.
- Sarkisyan is dead because she was denied surgery, they lost in court because it was legal for the HMO to do that.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Obviously you didn't read the refutation. They interviewed uninsured patients only once, and if they died years later, they assumed they were still uninsured. #FAIL. They also didn't survey those older than 65
2. An insurance company can't "deny surgery", they can only deny paying for it. Insurance company can't stop doctors from doing transplant. Moreover UNOS has a policy of giving patients organs without regard to financial status
3. Umm which part "life saving surgery" is so hard to understand illiterate?
Please insert a coin and try again.
And why are you crying about denied coverage? Medicare has the highest rate of denied claims, twice that of the average of all private insurance. Medicare also loses $120 billion per year in fraud alone. When you solve these problems and make it efficient, we can talk about implementing govt health care on a national scale. Try again kiddo
1. The death rate for uninsured was so high it was obvious it was the lack of insurance and people over 65 are outliers when it comes to death for obvious reasons.
2. It's effectively the same exact thing, especially when it's at the point of going under the knife which is what happened with Sarkisyan.
3. What part of she got surgery in the US and survived didn't you understand?
@AndroidPolitician 1. Nope. They could have very well gotten insurance later.
2. No it isn't. EMTALA ensures everyone gets emergency care. Doctors and UNOS decides who gets the organs. Sarkisyan wasn't left with a bill, she was never given the transplant. I know you're borderline retarded, but this isn't rocket science
3. Umm EXACTLY. She was saved by a life saving surgery that was otherwise denied in Canada. She is not alive anymore though.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Umm NO. Unless they verified it they had no way of knowing. It's called empirical evidence for a reason.
2. Court acknowledged what? Her case was thrown out. I have said this before - learn to form a coherent rebuttal to the points I made.
3. Doesn't matter. Healy was denied a life saving surgery. Empirical evidence shows private insurance is much better than Medicare & Medicaid and more efficient
This is simply closing your ears and shouting na na na na
"This is simply closing your ears and shouting na na na na" This statement is so ironic right now.
1. There's no one factor that could of led to the higher death rates except for lack of insurance. But even if that was true not having it at that time also leads to higher death because people went untreated.
2. No it wasn't, they lost. They lost because the court said the HMO killed but that it was legal.
@AndroidPolitician LOL repeating 45,000 people die when I have completely debunked it, doesn't make it true. It's just pathetic that you have to keep repeating a lie.
Yes Canada does have a better health care system than us. See, I am not an ideological idiot in denial like you. But we don't have a free market health care. Half of it is govt run. When you can eliminate $120 billion/year that Medicare loses in fraud then we can talk about implementing it for the whole country.
No I debunked you're claim that it the study was flawed. You can shut your eyes and go "na na na na" and ignore the fact that people who were uninsured die much more years later but it doesn't change reality.
The only ideological idiot here is you, the US has a mostly private healthcare system and has the worst results while countries that have the most public system have the best.
Only a fanatic would look at a correlation and come with the opposite conclusion.
@AndroidPolitician Nope. If they had verified that these people were still uninsured, then they might have a case, but they didn't. We have been over this, keep up downy.
Nope. Over 50% of US is govt run.
Really? Countries with "the most public system have the best"? Bangladesh has the MOST "public system". Their constitution even guarantees it, except people don't even have access to basic care.
Try again.
Btw illiterate, learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
There are numerous countries with healthcare in their constitution like, oh I don't know, Canada.
And the point is you are fanatically taking one side over all the evidence. Countries like Canada, Germany, France, Australia etc. all have 100% or close to it, government run healthcare and do better than 50% privately-run US.
So by you're logic you take the exact opposite conclusion, it's like thinking if you smoke more you'll get less cancer.
@AndroidPolitician Nope. Then tell me why Bangladesh has such a bad health care system. It is also after all 100% govt run. All the countries - "Canada, Germany, France, Australia etc" have plenty of flaws. You obviously haven't studied them. Also they are nowhere close to being 100% govt run. The only exception is UK. Canada for example is only 70% public. 30% is ILLEGAL private. Herp derp.
No one is saying they don't have flaws but the point is all those systems are by a vast majority public systems and do better than the US in basically every healthcare outcome and are all cheaper.
It's like person A smokes 50% of the time who has cancer and Person B who smokes 10% of the time doesn't and you're saying A should smoke more.
And what do you mean "Nope"? Take a second to look up the Canadian constitution, healthcare is written as a right.
@AndroidPolitician An outlier? Hmm let's see: India, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Haiti, Zimbabwe, N Korea. The list is endless. One thing all the poorest countries have in common, is that they have plenty of govt, and little of anything else.
"Evidence" must mean opinion in your delusional land.
"The more private = worse" what an idiot. Right, I am sure all the consumer products will be better if it was govt produced. What's ironic is you have probably never even been in govt.
Wow really? Maybe because those countries haven't even industrialized yet? By your logic Somalia is a reason why private healthcare doesn't work. If you want an actual example look at Taiwan before they had single payer.
After single-payer was implemented in the 90s their healthcare became orders of magnitude better.
Yeah I guess Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, France, Taiwan (post-90s) are just coincidentally better the US and have single-payer.
@AndroidPolitician HOLY SHIT! I actually got through to an idiot like you.
Aaaaaaaaaaand what exactly is industrialization? Is it private or govt produced? What has produced this standard of living? Health care is no different. It is a service that can be provided more efficiently by the market. What was it that you said? "Private = worse". Herp derp. Try again.
Industrialization is almost always done via protectionism like the US industrialized because of massive tariffs and it's the same for Germany and basically every country ever.
The point is it's independent of healthcare or Somalia would disprove everything you've said.
And it is actually different, if you were right Taiwan would of suffered from switching to single-payer instead they became much better off.
2. Nope. Somalia is actually better off than it was under it's socialist govt (look it up).
3. Wrong. Taiwan is highly capitalistic. Learn what's the buggy and what's the horse in an economy, ergo what drives an economy and what holds it back.
1. Oh so Germany and the US just coincidentally became industrial powers the same time they implemented massive tariffs? If it weren't for protectionism we would still be maximizing our comparative advantage in corn today.
2. Uh no people lived longer and had less violence then they do now.
3. That doesn't disprove the fact that after adopting single-payer their healthcare system became orders of magnitude better.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Hmmm interesting form of retardation. So all Bangladesh has to do is impose tariffs and they'll be rich? Why didn't you say so before? Oh wait they already have that and plenty of other state controls, which is why they are poor. Learn what is correlation and causation.
Tariffs and currency devaluations are usually reciprocated. Smoot-Hawley is what slid us into depression.
No they would also need to invest vast amounts into industry and steal and implement patents like the US did early on. Smoot Hawley came in when the US already industrialized and not even Milton Friedman thought it created unemployment or "slid us into depression."
2. Bahahahaha are you fucking stupid? Somalia's GDP per capita was higher in 1975 than today and living standards plummeted during the government collapse.
GDP measure includes govt spending there Einstein, obviously it will be lower after govt collapse. Herp derp!
3. Taiwan didn't "eliminate market" you illiterate cunt. All services are still provided by the market, govt just subsidizes it. And their system is actually in the red, and they actually had to implement co-pay to prevent abuse. Herp derp. Please insert a coin and try again. Rename yourself to Mr. Wrong.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Wrong. The measure I gave you was exactly one year after.
2. Wrong. Repeating "none of these things are true" over and over and over again doesn't make it so. Your illiteracy and ignorance, once again is NOT my problem. Feel free to look up Somalia before and after.
3. Get a dictionary and look up what "eliminate" means. Subsidizing is not elimination.
Try and form a coherent, factual rebuttal and try again.
2. Nope. They have higher standard of living, per capita and also life expectancy.
3. Yes it does. It's an empirical fact that efficiency is higher in the market. No amount of butthurtness and denial will change that fact.
The other way around sunshine. Slapping you around is amusing and all, & ignorance is one thing, but I am SERIOUSLY beginning to think you have some form of brain damage.
3. Why didn't single payer make their healthcare worse?
Seriously if markets are the best thing ever, then how come, Taiwan, the process of eliminating markets in favor of single-payer, make their healthcare system better?
@AndroidPolitician No more private does not equal worse, Canada and the UK lag behind all EU and Asian nations which have public and private systems like the USA. The USA is an outlier because the cost of developing health care is more incorporated into the cost and subtracted from the cost of other nations. A second problem you don't mention is what happens when the government goes belly up..Who in Greece is going to keep the standard of health care up now?
@AndroidPolitician Also we don't have a constitution in Canada we have a chater of rights and freedoms that is only from the 1980s. Funny to note that the NDP and liberal left here fight against the Harper governements attempts to pay for Canadians on waiting list to get private care..
Canadians and Europeans reap the rewards from the cost of developing health care being dumped on the US consumer. Compair Canada to France or Singapor and tell me where the big difference lies.
@AndroidPolitician The numbers do not lie, the Canadian medical system is marginally better than no healthcare system. I already posted the numbers here a few pages back. If you can't handle reality then you should probably be looking at the premise that your ideology is giving you. I have no ideology.
@AndroidPolitician You can't look at numbers like this in isolation from the science behind collecting them. For example the USA has the best infant mortality rate in the world. Why? Because what defines being born is not the same fron the USA to France and Cuba for example. In the USA once outside the woob you are counted as being born, Where as in France a child is counted as stillborn if it dies a few hours after birth. in Cuba they abort at any sign of trouble. This skews the numbers.
No that's a made up claim by the right wing, the UN agency responsible for infant mortality uses the same methodology for all the countries and the US is at the bottom and especially below countries like Canada and Germany.
No they don't, and addiction is a separate issue. In the US millions of people do literally go bankrupt from healthcare bills.
@AndroidPolitician No it is not a made up claim. The UN does not use the same methodology for all nations because they don't do on the ground data collection. There are no corrections made for preventive abortions. Also attempts made in neonatial surgury that fail are counted as infant mortality.
As a Canadian I have to laugh at your idea that government induced addiction to pain killers isn't a black mark on single payer system. Try working on a waiting list for eye surgury, give me a break
Yes it does, countries don't just randomly submit data and the UN just publishes it, they use the exact same methodology. Literally to think otherwise is a conspiracy theory.
Drugs research in the US is mostly state funded.
The EU, Asia, Canada etc. all have healthcare systems are by a vast majority public systems that are nothing like the US.
In fact, the more privatized like the UK and US do worse than more public like Germany and France.
@AndroidPolitician No they are not on the ground collecting it. There is no way to confirm the exact same methodology short of doing the data collection your self. The UN doesn't do on the ground collection of stats on the factors that could skew the numbers like aborton rate.
Their systems are differnt but the USA isn't a free market for health care or absent government by a long shot.
I will post about drug research becasue it is clear you got lazy with this one.
No agencies like UNICEF are literally on the ground.
I said "state funded" not government created.
That would be like 3 examples when the overall trend line is obvious. I don't know about Singapore's healthcare system but I know Taiwan went from a private to a single-payer system in the 90s and improved vastly.
@AndroidPolitician The claim that most drug research is done by Government grants is misleading for a number of reasons.
The first is padding the numbers of drug research by gov is done by connecting grants from government with university reasearch labs that produce the elementary science behind drug discoveries. Much of this is government but it is a lose connection at best and I could make similar claims about the oil industry for example..cont
@AndroidPolitician cont...Universities get grants from government and industry to do work ups or studies on areas for petroleum exploration and production, however that is very very far from discovering a deposit and bringing to to market economiclly. The studies that show the government doing must of the funding of drug discoveries leave out the huge cost of taking theoretical science to the market. I have done science funded by industry and government and their goals are not the same.
@AndroidPolitician Also France has a more private system then the UK and Canada. In France it is about 65% public with the rest private both profit and non profit. The NHS has a near monopoly on primary care and and in Canada the government controls about 75% of the funding but has direct control over the hospitals. I would be interested in knowing what you think about the system in Singapore.
@AndroidPolitician No it is not a made up claim. The UN does not use the same methodology for all nations because they don't do on the ground data collection. There are no corrections made for preventive abortions. Also attempts made in neonatial surgury that fail are counted as infant mortality.
As a Canadian I have to laugh at your idea that government induced addiction to pain killers isn't a black mark on single payer system. Try working on a waiting list for eye surgury, give me a break
@AndroidPolitician In Canada for example lots of people go bankrupt for reason related to waiting for health care. One example is addiction to pain killers. I saw this first hand in Nova Scotia where in rural communities with poor acess to health care normal people lose everything when they become pain killer addicts.
Another example is having to live, wait and recover away from home and work because maybe one or two cities have the care. This in not reflected in the medical financial loss #s
There's a big difference between denial of procedures and denial of insurance. In 2008, Medicare had all time high of denial because of conservative states like Arizona that cut back Medicare coverage of certain surgeries. That being said, HMOs deny coverage completely leading to 45k deaths, Medicare covers everyone 65+ universally.
Thus far you're arguments are from biased think tanks, manipulating data and blatant denial. 45k people die yearly it's a fact.
- Last time the news checked on her, Healy was alive. Sarkisyan is dead.
The fact that you don't know something as basic as a sample size, or think that the court case where it was ruled legal for an HMO to get away with murder somehow "disproves" that the HMO killed her shows you're barley even a functioning person let alone able to argue healthcare policy.
Did you even look into the Healy story? She wasn't denied people with more serious conditions needed surgy over her which happens in the US as well but notice the difference: Sarkisyan died and Healy didn't.
45,000 people die in the US and not a single person has died in Canada from lack of healthcare.
@AndroidPolitician US women age 40 to 64, 87% of those with insurance had a mammogram within 5 years.
The rate for Canadian women was 65% — the same as for uninsured women in the US.
Canadian women also had the same rate of screening for cervical cancer as uninsured US women (80%), over five years. Among insured US women, the rate was 92%.
Among uninsured US men, 31% were screened for prostate cancer, compared with 16% of Canadian men. For insured US men, the rate was 52%.
@AndroidPolitician No, I do not unfortunately. I'm not willing to accept that Canada's healthcare is better than a Free Market system. In every instance where Government has been involved the cost always goes up.
It is......Canada has a lower unemployment rate, higher life expectancy, higher literacy rate, higher average standard of living, lower crime rate, safer big cities etc.
And can you actullay refer to a legitimate study (not the biased John Stossel program) that uses actullay data to show that "thousands of Canadians come her for treatment" because if you can't that is simply unsubstantiated rhetoric...And even if that is true it is
@AndroidPolitician Really? Curious how many Canadians are crossing the borders into America for healthcare. And, apparently you haven't heard of all the PRIVATE clinics opening up in Canada. Technically, they're illegal but the Canadian gov't is looking the other way because they can't handle the overload.
@AndroidPolitician I went to school with one who died, I was in about grade 9 when it happened. I only remember her first name - Ashley.
I disagree that the outcomes are better, but the costs are. Interestingly enough the doctors are not paid particularly more in the US; the difference in cost is almost entirely due to the fact that the insurance companies are getting away with scamming the system because the regulations are terrible, and competition is not encouraged at all.
She died because the healthcare system waited too long? Assuming it's true the media in Canada tries to cover every instance of this I'd be surprised if it wasn't covered.
The outcomes for countries that have single payer are orders of magnitude better than the US and it's because of healthcare. There's no way Canada, France, Australia, Germany etc. are all somehow genetically superior.
@AndroidPolitician I have not seen outcomes data for various countries so I cannot confirm or deny your claims but I could look it up. I do know however that the US has much more crime and far more prisoners per capita than most first world countries. It also has very poorer rehabilitation outcomes, which further increases crime when prisoners serve their sentences completely. This probably contributes to highly to the costs and outcomes of the health care system.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
Thomas Sowell gets it! Socialism does not work! The record of history is absolutely clear, the only system that brings the masses up is capitalism! Socialism and communism only appeals to those who are jealous of the success of others. Wake up America!
@Kogerii What do you mean he has been for state expansion? I just read one of his newer books and there was no call for state expansion. If anything it was the other way around. He was a Marxist (even after studying under Friedman) in is youth and converted to classical economics as he grew older.
Thomas Sowell is an "uncle Tom", in the colloquial sense, because he is a betrayer of all impoverished minorities around the world with his economic philosophy.
@GnomesAmok how is he an uncle tom? because he found a way to rise out of the myriad that is "No Snitching", rap, sports, and welfare are the only routes?
@aegis808 WELFARE WAS NOT STARTED TO HELP BLACK FOLKS. THE DOWNFALL OF THE RUST BELT PROBABLY ADVANCED THE WELFARE SYSTEM. THIS UNCLE TOM DON'T UNDERSTANT NOTHING. HE JUST HATE BLACK FOLKS BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY UNCLE TOM SOWELL. PROBABLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD GOT SOME FORM OF WELFARE.
@comptonproduction Is that the best you've got? The retort of an ignorant man? Why was my comment removed? It wasn't exactly inappropriate, to wit, it exposed the true nature of welfare.
@comptonproduction You, sir, are far more likely to be the UTMF. Thomas Sowell, in the same manner as Malcolm X, is a perfect example of a thinking, intelligent, reall man. Versus the all too many lemmings we have today that blindly lead a party (of course, Democratic Party) that was the home of such men as demonic men as Bull Conner and George Wallace who were both instrumental in unleashing dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors in the 60's.
@comptonproduction LMAO, I bet that you think that those that encourage your slavery to the welfare state are intelligent.. don't you?... what a fool u are.
So let me get this straight. You state no facts or information, but you manage to type out that Sowell is the "mostest stupidest". Even "more stupid than a dog". LOL! I think you must have been looking in the mirror and thinking of yourself.
@comptonproduction Again, no facts, just name calling. Do you have ANYTHING to offer? Do you know ANYTHING? Do you understand how to debate without the insults? Are you capable of thinking past your emotions to have a rational discussion?
If not, then you set a really poor example for your side of things.
@comptonproduction How could you care about what others think when you are not even clear on how YOU think? I don't think you even know your own thoughts on the issues that Sowell brings forward.
Slavery with a new slave master...democratic liberals have black people fooled.. and it's sad! This country is going down hill because of liberals who really should be called destroyers
I have been watching a lot of videos about Dr. Sowell and on almost all of them the top comment is praising his "brillance" (which is evident) and that is sad because it is not his intelligence that is on display in many of these discussions or lectures, but rather his insight and wisdom, which in all honesty is really just nearly infallible logic aka common sense! something which so many people have lost
Listen to what he says. He says that we need to look at the results not the intentions. Leftists HATE looking at facts and results. If the American people would just understand what the results are? The leftist would be in dire straights.
@thatsillyliberal Your link is to a video that does nothing but attack sowell. Obviously lacking the intelligence to attack sowell's ideas. You fail here. goodbye.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then they want you to judge by their intentions rather than the results. Need to strike at the root on that.
This this idiot say that He wanted the Boys in the Hood to come up with their own program to uplift themselves out of the ghetto. That's just like asking a blind man to tell me the time. If the knew how to uplift themselves they wouldn't be in poverty. Uncle Tom Sowell is so pathetic. He wasted all his money on college. Did he pay for his College education or did he get welfare.
comptonproduction 2 days ago
@comptonproduction
"Dur! Black people in the ghetto are too stupid and helpless to change their situation! The fact that you think differently Thomas Sowell makes you and uncle Tom!"
Requote: "Makes YOU an uncle Tom..."
Are you FUCKING kidding me?
OthelloCarmellow 21 hours ago
I THINKS THAT BLACKS IN THE HOOD.WANT TO HAVE A BETTER LIFE FOR THEMSELVES. BLACKS ARE STIGMATIZES BY WHITES, AND ARE ALSO OPPRESSED. UNCLE TOM SOWELL IS A SELLOUT.
comptonproduction 19 hours ago
@comptonproduction What makes Tom Sowell a sellout?
ASAT225 16 hours ago
He's the only disadvantage negro in this room. mental disadvantage.
comptonproduction 2 days ago
Anyone who thinks the Candain health care system is the cats ass, hasnt it used recently. Yes, serious conditions are dealt with farely well but the rest sucks ass. Wait times are bad, you get the boot out the door in record time and hospitals arent getting the funding they would like.
ADoseofReality1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Blacks Against Obama" Uploaded by daswann14 on Aug 19, 2011
"Maxine Waters talking to the black caucus has been in the news and given some steam to this issue, so I figured I'd weigh in. Suffice it to say I am totally disgusted with his utter lack of care toward African-Americans, and thinks that it sets an awful and dangerous precedent."
Ceyseau and Inept Leaders
......and BO singing Al Green tunes, or calling upon Reverend Al Sharpton will not dupe this segment of Black America.
MLL1127 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Blacks Against Obama" Uploaded by daswann14 on Aug 19, 2011
"Maxine Waters talking to the black caucus has been in the news and given some steam to this issue, so I figured I'd weigh in. Suffice it to say I am totally disgusted with his utter lack of care toward African-Americans, and thinks that it sets an awful and dangerous precedent."
Ceyseau and Inept Leaders
......and BO singing Al Green tunes, or calling upon Reverend Al Sharpton will not dupe this segment of Black America.
MLL1127 2 weeks ago
This is what a liberal would say about this... "He just said something about black people he must be racist."
kriskats19 4 weeks ago
This dude is the best.
TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 month ago
["What this betrays is a sense...a sort of propriatary conception of blacks somewhat at variance with the spirit of the 13 amendment. "]
BAM!!
That was the sound of Dr. Sowell dropping some knowledge on your ass.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
Is Sowell seriously trying to say that welfare creates more poverty and because of this cycle democrats get the poor vote?
You'd have to be psychotic to deny that welfare reduces poverty, in the 1800s 30-50% of people were in poverty, in 1959 it was 23% then after the Great society it shrank and by now is 15%.
Just look at the world, the countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare, and that's not including benefits.
Sowell is flat wrong.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician but it's at the hands of working people ... Thomas Sowell is saying ... if you keep this "welfare" up ... people will just say ... fuck it .. and not have any ambition to work ... the Gov. is taking care of me ... this is not America ... and it will not be America ... welfare is good for people out of work and Looking for work ... it's not for lifers as congress likes to be .. Term limits on Congress .. Term Limits on Welfare ...
SupaNami 3 months ago
@SupaNami
If you're trying to say people on welfare are "subsidized over the poverty line" well it's not true, poverty is calculated as either food intake or international incomes which don't include government benefits.
And as for dependency even without limits on welfare the median time on was about 3-4 years, there is depdency in the sense that people with prior problems are dependent but thinking welfare in-itself makes people unwilling to work is an irrational belief.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician your name suits you well...i nor anyone else can change your mind on the subject. Not sure where you're from ... but i know a lot of people who take advantage of the system "welfare"...and yes the subsidized over the poverty line has been increased under Obama ... it's cuz the Democrats "Obama" will keep a vote ... just like more spending for our Military will get Republican votes, alot of people on welfare tend to stay on welfare...Detroit MI, great example .. look into it
SupaNami 3 months ago
@SupaNami
Uh ok, "people you know" aside, the vast majority don't and that's been true even when there were no time limits.
I'm not sure if you missed what I said but that's literally impossible by definition of how poverty is measured,
lets say tommorow welfare benefits are $100k a month (and people have the same non-welfare income), they would still be considered poor.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician said, ["I'm not sure if you missed what I said but that's literally impossible by definition of how poverty is measured, say tommorow welfare benefits are $100k a month (and people have the same non-welfare income), they would still be considered poor."]
That's exactly right. Poverty is considered "low" earned income; low wages or salary. Someone not working and living off of 2 million dollars in the bank is considered "poor" by our bloated moronic government officials.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@LucisFerre1
PS. Even people who win the lottery are still considered poor and remain qualified to receive the welfare they're already collecting, because lottery winnings are not considered income, they're considered liquid assets. The gov officials KNOW that these people, who are ignorant on how to create and keep wealth, will be broke again in just a short number of years. This is almost always the case where they take the lump sum.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@LucisFerre1 If in the USA you choose the full payout immediately rather than the extended payout plan, you get a reduced amount, and then the government taxes you ontop of that, and then you also take a tax hit at the end of the fiscal year because the winnings put you into a higher tax bracket. I'd say they damn well better give you welfare if you win the lottery, because they've basically just stolen half your winnings!
theredscourge 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Poverty being reduced by the lowered prices in products thanks to the free market is not the same as poverty being reduced by welfare programs. The very fact that if you manage to get even the shittiest job after being on welfare, you immediately lose your welfare benefits is proof enough that the welfare system keeps you poor by punishing you for getting a job.
A Negative Income Tax, where everyone gets a certain income ONTOP of anything earned is better.
theredscourge 2 months ago
@theredscourge
People aren't rats that can only see short term incentives (ie taking away benefits for a job) they invest their welfare over the long term for a better life which is why universally whenever welfare is implemented or made more generous poverty is reduced.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician But you're wrong. People are irrational and make economic choices irrationally. They should be allowed to this, it is their right. It is not the right of some disaffected bureaucrat to determine outcomes. By making irrational choices you will soon learn the correct direction and make better choices. It's called "learning". Just like rats in a maze.
heavyd777 2 months ago
@heavyd777
First of all evidence for both outcomes of welfare and biologically show that people invest their welfare for a better lives (the countries with the most benefits have the least poverty) and that people are evolved to act rationally but don't because of lack of information.
Second it's not the "bureaucrat" that decides, people overwhelming favor the programs and it's their money that they use to help others or themselves via the benefits.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician , it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality
econonerd12 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician invest their welfare for better lives? what do you mean? How do you invest your welfare? Why is medicare, medicaid, and social security some of the biggest expenses in all modern countries if what you say is true, wouldnt there be no need because people are already investing in their welfare sufficiently on their own?
I think the real situation is people attempt to invest in what they think is best for them, but they think they are bullet proof and are not.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
It's basic common sense, people save welfare to things like housing, education, surviving without a job etc. and then get better lives by attaining those things. It's why the countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare.
Medicare is the problem (Not SS which will give out 100% benefits until 2035) and it's because it has to subsidize an expensive and costly private system, if we had Medicare for all we would have a budget surplus.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The average family of 4 in the US currently has about $4000 in savings, $200,000 of personal debt, and a $900,000 share of unfunded government liabilities. If you dropped the entire military budget to $0 you still could not balance the budget. Things are BAD. You have proof that all private systems are costly? No, just that the current one sucks. The canadian public health system sucks too. Rich foreigners often come to private US clinics for care. Why?
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
The Deficit for 2012 is $1 trillion and if the Bush tax cuts were removed and we had single-payer we would actually have a surplus. The current one is private and costs for private healthcare are rising much worse than Medicare.
Canada has better healthcare outcomes than the US (especially since tens of thousands don't die from lack of insurance) and the rate of people going to Canada from the US because of lack of care is just as high if not higher.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician No one in the US "dies" from "lack of insurance". All states have laws that life saving treatments MUST be provided regardless of ability to pay.
It is not federal law, but your statement reveals a lack of understanding of the US healthcare system.
That being said, I support a single payer system. Not for the reasons you do, I suspect. A single payer (or Japan's regulated cost model), is the only way to control the cost center...meaning, what the providers charge.
englanddg 1 month ago
i do not know a lot about the regulated cost model but i do know that my dad works for a "regulated company" (bizarre mix of private+public) and they are extremely inefficient. none of them care about doing a good job because each year they just claim how much their expenses went up by and it gets paid. they also get a percentage return on equity for all of their expenses. this is a company that manages a section of the power grid, which ignores obvious efficiency improvements!
theredscourge 1 month ago
@englanddg
45,000 people die each year from lack of insurance, actually.
I support it for that reason as well, it wouldn't be productive if 100% of the budget went to Medicare alone.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician From Wikipedia: "Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $561 billion OVER THE NEXT 10 years". The key data point here is that the amount of money is calculated over TEN YEARS, which means divide by 10. Note that 561 billion is far less than the shortfall, even for ONE year. Your message claiming that ending the Bush Tax Cuts will solve everything is built on obviously flawed information.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician regarding Canada, a place in which I have lived and used the health care facilities, the reason tens of thousands are not dying due to lack of insurance is that the population is 1/10th that of USA, and so only thousands are dying, but due to not having a family doctor or being put on a waiting list, of which there are many in Canada and very few in the US, especially for MRIs, which are critical for very serious health issues.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
My main point was the budgetary effects of single-payer not the tax cuts.
Name a single person that has died in Canada because of waiting lists etc. a single person. Your experiences not withstanding Canada's healthcare outcomes are much better.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!? People die on waiting lists by the hundreds! I went to school with one, but forget her last name. MRI wait times are a great example of an unnecessary wait time, and they are often critical in catching deadly diseases early. Currently the wait times in several regions of Canada and the EU are over a year. Google this: "Lower Mainland patients outraged over MRI waits".
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
Name one person that actually died.
Note that for all the problems of waiting lists in Canada their outcomes and costs are much better.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Why don't YOU name the person that died due to denial of medical care. The 45,000 figure comes from a heavily flawed Harvard study, that happens to be done by those who support Obama care. The study looks at 9000 surveys in which only 350 died but somehow came up with the 45,000 number. EMTALA alone guarantees that no one dies from denial of service. Everyone in this country is technically covered for emergency care. Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual
Nataline Sarkisyan died because the insurer denied her a transplant because it costed too much. She is one of the 45,000 people who die a year.
That's how statistics and polling works you idiot, when polls ask who Americans will vote for the figures are usually very close to the elections, do those polls ask 100 million Americans? No they don't, they ask a sample size.
This is math middle school kids learn. The fact you, a grown adult doesn't know is appalling.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope. The study is completely flawed and has been debunked. Look it up. Also thousands come to United States to get medical care they were otherwise denied in Canada. Try again kiddo.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@H1TMANactual
You're probably thinking of a study before the Harvard one that had some criticisms but the Harvard one has had none. But if your argument is "it only got the information of a few thousand people" you are literally too stupid to argue and should look up what a sample size is.
No one is denied in Canada (which millions are in the US) they might come to the US because of weight times but people go to Canada because they are denied or because they can't afford it.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Sarkisyan's case was thrown out when they tried to sue the insurance company. Try again.
And I told you to look up the refutation of your study. Not my problem that you're retarded.
Shirley Healy - was denied a life saving surgery and would have died had she not traveled to US to get surgery. Thousands of Canadians come here for treatment. Yep Canada so great! Try again retard.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual
So the fact they didn't win the lawsuit changes the fact that the insurance company killed her by refusing to do a surgery?
You are literally too retarded to argue, the "refutation" is not of the Harvard study (<------ did you catch that part? it's not the Harvard study) but a different one that came out earlier. No one has "refuted" the fact that 45,000 die every year from lack of health insurance.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Yes, last I checked courts decide, not a random retard like you.
Yes there are multiple refutations of the Harvard study with the 45,000 figure. Once again it's not my problem you're retarded.
Yes I have looked at it, simple fact is Healy would have died had she not got "surgy" from the US.
You know I think you have made it pretty obvious that you're an illiterate moron in denial. I am wasting my time.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual a tiny minute number that means nothing...."Thousands" out of a population of 35 million is nothing..."Thousands" of American leave the country and search for other health care as-well...particularly advanced stem cell treatments and the like as well as for cheaper care that they could not afford in the US.
yobro250 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
Name it, name one refutation of the Harvard study.
Yeah here's the difference, Healy is alive and Nataline Sarkisyan is dead as are 45,000 other Americans.
There is not one Canadian who died waiting for healthcare, if there was you would of have named them immediately.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician The study is published by - Physicians for a national health program. No bias there DERP. It tracked 9000 subjects and then somehow ended up with the 45,000 number. Just 1 refutation? National Center for Policy analysis.
I already debunked your Sarkisyan hypothesis. Healy is not alive moron she died. I did name them - Shirley Healy. She got a life saving surgery here. You do understand the meaning of life saving don't you? Illiteracy is curable. Try again.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
Wow really? Here let me list things I've already said:
- The NCPA is a conservative think tank (not a healthcare org) whose "refutation" is literally citing a republican congressman in Florida. That's it. Not even a study.
- Yes it used 9000 because that was a sample size, the fact that you don't know what a sample size is, STILL, is appalling.
- Sarkisyan is dead because she was denied surgery, they lost in court because it was legal for the HMO to do that.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Obviously you didn't read the refutation. They interviewed uninsured patients only once, and if they died years later, they assumed they were still uninsured. #FAIL. They also didn't survey those older than 65
2. An insurance company can't "deny surgery", they can only deny paying for it. Insurance company can't stop doctors from doing transplant. Moreover UNOS has a policy of giving patients organs without regard to financial status
...contd...
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician .contd.
3. Umm which part "life saving surgery" is so hard to understand illiterate?
Please insert a coin and try again.
And why are you crying about denied coverage? Medicare has the highest rate of denied claims, twice that of the average of all private insurance. Medicare also loses $120 billion per year in fraud alone. When you solve these problems and make it efficient, we can talk about implementing govt health care on a national scale. Try again kiddo
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
1. The death rate for uninsured was so high it was obvious it was the lack of insurance and people over 65 are outliers when it comes to death for obvious reasons.
2. It's effectively the same exact thing, especially when it's at the point of going under the knife which is what happened with Sarkisyan.
3. What part of she got surgery in the US and survived didn't you understand?
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. LOL Umm NO it's not "obvious" at all.
2. No it isn't.
3. What?
You have been completely owned. Fuck off. When you can manage a coherent, factual rebuttal, come back.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
Do I really have to dumb this down?
1. unless you think people without insurance smoke more or get into car accidents more them dying more is obviously they're not insured.
2. Yes it is, if you're under the knife and your insurance company decides not to pay for it it's the same thing.
3. Every news report says she got surgery in the US and lived, you're either really stupid and can't read or lying if you think Healy died.
You're reply was literally "nuh uhh".
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Nope. They could have very well gotten insurance later.
2. No it isn't. EMTALA ensures everyone gets emergency care. Doctors and UNOS decides who gets the organs. Sarkisyan wasn't left with a bill, she was never given the transplant. I know you're borderline retarded, but this isn't rocket science
3. Umm EXACTLY. She was saved by a life saving surgery that was otherwise denied in Canada. She is not alive anymore though.
Please insert a coin and try again.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
Wow really? I have to dumb this down even more?
1. Yeah they could have except for some weird reason their death rates were much higher than everyone else. For some reason
Not having insurance = die much more years later.
2. Yes and getting left with the bill let her to die. The courts acknowledged this and said it was legal.
3. Ummmm except Healy had money, and her delay happens in the US all the time too. Canada has better outcomes and lower cost anyway.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Umm NO. Unless they verified it they had no way of knowing. It's called empirical evidence for a reason.
2. Court acknowledged what? Her case was thrown out. I have said this before - learn to form a coherent rebuttal to the points I made.
3. Doesn't matter. Healy was denied a life saving surgery. Empirical evidence shows private insurance is much better than Medicare & Medicaid and more efficient
This is simply closing your ears and shouting na na na na
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
"This is simply closing your ears and shouting na na na na" This statement is so ironic right now.
1. There's no one factor that could of led to the higher death rates except for lack of insurance. But even if that was true not having it at that time also leads to higher death because people went untreated.
2. No it wasn't, they lost. They lost because the court said the HMO killed but that it was legal.
3. Same thing happens in the US as well but for $
Cont
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
But this discussion is so pointless it's unbelievable because Canada has better healthcare outcomes along with a cheaper system.
Just look at:
- Infant mortality,
- life expectancy
- Total cancer survival rates
- death from heart disease etc.
Canada trumps the US it's not even a question. The fact that 45,000 people die every year is like a footnote.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician LOL repeating 45,000 people die when I have completely debunked it, doesn't make it true. It's just pathetic that you have to keep repeating a lie.
Yes Canada does have a better health care system than us. See, I am not an ideological idiot in denial like you. But we don't have a free market health care. Half of it is govt run. When you can eliminate $120 billion/year that Medicare loses in fraud then we can talk about implementing it for the whole country.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
No I debunked you're claim that it the study was flawed. You can shut your eyes and go "na na na na" and ignore the fact that people who were uninsured die much more years later but it doesn't change reality.
The only ideological idiot here is you, the US has a mostly private healthcare system and has the worst results while countries that have the most public system have the best.
Only a fanatic would look at a correlation and come with the opposite conclusion.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope. If they had verified that these people were still uninsured, then they might have a case, but they didn't. We have been over this, keep up downy.
Nope. Over 50% of US is govt run.
Really? Countries with "the most public system have the best"? Bangladesh has the MOST "public system". Their constitution even guarantees it, except people don't even have access to basic care.
Try again.
Btw illiterate, learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@H1TMANactual
There are numerous countries with healthcare in their constitution like, oh I don't know, Canada.
And the point is you are fanatically taking one side over all the evidence. Countries like Canada, Germany, France, Australia etc. all have 100% or close to it, government run healthcare and do better than 50% privately-run US.
So by you're logic you take the exact opposite conclusion, it's like thinking if you smoke more you'll get less cancer.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope. Then tell me why Bangladesh has such a bad health care system. It is also after all 100% govt run. All the countries - "Canada, Germany, France, Australia etc" have plenty of flaws. You obviously haven't studied them. Also they are nowhere close to being 100% govt run. The only exception is UK. Canada for example is only 70% public. 30% is ILLEGAL private. Herp derp.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
No one is saying they don't have flaws but the point is all those systems are by a vast majority public systems and do better than the US in basically every healthcare outcome and are all cheaper.
It's like person A smokes 50% of the time who has cancer and Person B who smokes 10% of the time doesn't and you're saying A should smoke more.
And what do you mean "Nope"? Take a second to look up the Canadian constitution, healthcare is written as a right.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician LOL what? Probably the dumbest analogy I have even heard. Doesn't even make any sense.
Nope. Didn't answer my question. Why is Bangladesh 100% public yet no one can get access to even basic care? Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
Bangladesh is an outlier in the correlation but I'll dumb it down for you.
The overwhelming majority of countries that have mostly public insurence do better than countries that don't including the US.
The more private = worse
But you look at all this evidence and say we need a more privatized system.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician An outlier? Hmm let's see: India, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Haiti, Zimbabwe, N Korea. The list is endless. One thing all the poorest countries have in common, is that they have plenty of govt, and little of anything else.
"Evidence" must mean opinion in your delusional land.
"The more private = worse" what an idiot. Right, I am sure all the consumer products will be better if it was govt produced. What's ironic is you have probably never even been in govt.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
Wow really? Maybe because those countries haven't even industrialized yet? By your logic Somalia is a reason why private healthcare doesn't work. If you want an actual example look at Taiwan before they had single payer.
After single-payer was implemented in the 90s their healthcare became orders of magnitude better.
Yeah I guess Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, France, Taiwan (post-90s) are just coincidentally better the US and have single-payer.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician HOLY SHIT! I actually got through to an idiot like you.
Aaaaaaaaaaand what exactly is industrialization? Is it private or govt produced? What has produced this standard of living? Health care is no different. It is a service that can be provided more efficiently by the market. What was it that you said? "Private = worse". Herp derp. Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
Industrialization is almost always done via protectionism like the US industrialized because of massive tariffs and it's the same for Germany and basically every country ever.
The point is it's independent of healthcare or Somalia would disprove everything you've said.
And it is actually different, if you were right Taiwan would of suffered from switching to single-payer instead they became much better off.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Wrong. Mercantilism was debunked long time ago.
2. Nope. Somalia is actually better off than it was under it's socialist govt (look it up).
3. Wrong. Taiwan is highly capitalistic. Learn what's the buggy and what's the horse in an economy, ergo what drives an economy and what holds it back.
Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
1. Oh so Germany and the US just coincidentally became industrial powers the same time they implemented massive tariffs? If it weren't for protectionism we would still be maximizing our comparative advantage in corn today.
2. Uh no people lived longer and had less violence then they do now.
3. That doesn't disprove the fact that after adopting single-payer their healthcare system became orders of magnitude better.
Seriously it's getting pathetic now.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Hmmm interesting form of retardation. So all Bangladesh has to do is impose tariffs and they'll be rich? Why didn't you say so before? Oh wait they already have that and plenty of other state controls, which is why they are poor. Learn what is correlation and causation.
Tariffs and currency devaluations are usually reciprocated. Smoot-Hawley is what slid us into depression.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
No they would also need to invest vast amounts into industry and steal and implement patents like the US did early on. Smoot Hawley came in when the US already industrialized and not even Milton Friedman thought it created unemployment or "slid us into depression."
2. Bahahahaha are you fucking stupid? Somalia's GDP per capita was higher in 1975 than today and living standards plummeted during the government collapse.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Wrong on all counts.
1. There were retalliations in response from other countries resulting in a 61% drop in exports in one year. Derp!
2. After the collapse of Somalia's socialist govt:
Life expectancy - higher
Access to health care facilities - higher
Infant mortality - lower
Civil liberties - more
Extreme poverty - lower.
H1TMANactual 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@H1TMANactual
1. The drop was happening before the tariff, do I need to start quoting Milton Friedman on why it didn't cause unemployment, hurp derp.
2. None of those things are true and let me just reply some quotes
"They have higher standard of living, per capita"
"GDP measure includes govt spending there Einstein, obviously it will be lower after govt collapse. "
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician ...contd...(2/2)
GDP measure includes govt spending there Einstein, obviously it will be lower after govt collapse. Herp derp!
3. Taiwan didn't "eliminate market" you illiterate cunt. All services are still provided by the market, govt just subsidizes it. And their system is actually in the red, and they actually had to implement co-pay to prevent abuse. Herp derp. Please insert a coin and try again. Rename yourself to Mr. Wrong.
H1TMANactual 4 days ago
@H1TMANactual
2/2
3. It implemented single-payer, aka Canadian healthcare. Do you think Adam Smith would of been for that or would have called that a "market"?
Just face it, no amount of herp derps, calling people cunts will change the fact that healthcare outcomes flourished after they eliminated the market.
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician 1. Wrong. The measure I gave you was exactly one year after.
2. Wrong. Repeating "none of these things are true" over and over and over again doesn't make it so. Your illiteracy and ignorance, once again is NOT my problem. Feel free to look up Somalia before and after.
3. Get a dictionary and look up what "eliminate" means. Subsidizing is not elimination.
Try and form a coherent, factual rebuttal and try again.
H1TMANactual 3 days ago
Comment removed
H1TMANactual 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician ..contd..(2/2)
2. Nope. They have higher standard of living, per capita and also life expectancy.
3. Yes it does. It's an empirical fact that efficiency is higher in the market. No amount of butthurtness and denial will change that fact.
The other way around sunshine. Slapping you around is amusing and all, & ignorance is one thing, but I am SERIOUSLY beginning to think you have some form of brain damage.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
3. Why didn't single payer make their healthcare worse?
Seriously if markets are the best thing ever, then how come, Taiwan, the process of eliminating markets in favor of single-payer, make their healthcare system better?
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician No more private does not equal worse, Canada and the UK lag behind all EU and Asian nations which have public and private systems like the USA. The USA is an outlier because the cost of developing health care is more incorporated into the cost and subtracted from the cost of other nations. A second problem you don't mention is what happens when the government goes belly up..Who in Greece is going to keep the standard of health care up now?
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Also we don't have a constitution in Canada we have a chater of rights and freedoms that is only from the 1980s. Funny to note that the NDP and liberal left here fight against the Harper governements attempts to pay for Canadians on waiting list to get private care..
Canadians and Europeans reap the rewards from the cost of developing health care being dumped on the US consumer. Compair Canada to France or Singapor and tell me where the big difference lies.
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician The numbers do not lie, the Canadian medical system is marginally better than no healthcare system. I already posted the numbers here a few pages back. If you can't handle reality then you should probably be looking at the premise that your ideology is giving you. I have no ideology.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
@Joe11Blue
The reality is every healthcare outcome is better in Canada and the system is cheaper.
To look at the evidence and come with the opposite conclusion is to be a fanatic.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician LOL! You calling me a fanatic while telling me that it's always better no matter what. LOL! You are certainly giving me a laugh.
Joe11Blue 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician You can't look at numbers like this in isolation from the science behind collecting them. For example the USA has the best infant mortality rate in the world. Why? Because what defines being born is not the same fron the USA to France and Cuba for example. In the USA once outside the woob you are counted as being born, Where as in France a child is counted as stillborn if it dies a few hours after birth. in Cuba they abort at any sign of trouble. This skews the numbers.
EasyEs 1 week ago
@EasyEs
No that's a made up claim by the right wing, the UN agency responsible for infant mortality uses the same methodology for all the countries and the US is at the bottom and especially below countries like Canada and Germany.
No they don't, and addiction is a separate issue. In the US millions of people do literally go bankrupt from healthcare bills.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician No it is not a made up claim. The UN does not use the same methodology for all nations because they don't do on the ground data collection. There are no corrections made for preventive abortions. Also attempts made in neonatial surgury that fail are counted as infant mortality.
As a Canadian I have to laugh at your idea that government induced addiction to pain killers isn't a black mark on single payer system. Try working on a waiting list for eye surgury, give me a break
EasyEs 1 week ago
@EasyEs
Yes it does, countries don't just randomly submit data and the UN just publishes it, they use the exact same methodology. Literally to think otherwise is a conspiracy theory.
Drugs research in the US is mostly state funded.
The EU, Asia, Canada etc. all have healthcare systems are by a vast majority public systems that are nothing like the US.
In fact, the more privatized like the UK and US do worse than more public like Germany and France.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician No they are not on the ground collecting it. There is no way to confirm the exact same methodology short of doing the data collection your self. The UN doesn't do on the ground collection of stats on the factors that could skew the numbers like aborton rate.
Their systems are differnt but the USA isn't a free market for health care or absent government by a long shot.
I will post about drug research becasue it is clear you got lazy with this one.
EasyEs 1 week ago
@EasyEs
No agencies like UNICEF are literally on the ground.
I said "state funded" not government created.
That would be like 3 examples when the overall trend line is obvious. I don't know about Singapore's healthcare system but I know Taiwan went from a private to a single-payer system in the 90s and improved vastly.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician The claim that most drug research is done by Government grants is misleading for a number of reasons.
The first is padding the numbers of drug research by gov is done by connecting grants from government with university reasearch labs that produce the elementary science behind drug discoveries. Much of this is government but it is a lose connection at best and I could make similar claims about the oil industry for example..cont
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician cont...Universities get grants from government and industry to do work ups or studies on areas for petroleum exploration and production, however that is very very far from discovering a deposit and bringing to to market economiclly. The studies that show the government doing must of the funding of drug discoveries leave out the huge cost of taking theoretical science to the market. I have done science funded by industry and government and their goals are not the same.
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Also France has a more private system then the UK and Canada. In France it is about 65% public with the rest private both profit and non profit. The NHS has a near monopoly on primary care and and in Canada the government controls about 75% of the funding but has direct control over the hospitals. I would be interested in knowing what you think about the system in Singapore.
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician No it is not a made up claim. The UN does not use the same methodology for all nations because they don't do on the ground data collection. There are no corrections made for preventive abortions. Also attempts made in neonatial surgury that fail are counted as infant mortality.
As a Canadian I have to laugh at your idea that government induced addiction to pain killers isn't a black mark on single payer system. Try working on a waiting list for eye surgury, give me a break
EasyEs 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician In Canada for example lots of people go bankrupt for reason related to waiting for health care. One example is addiction to pain killers. I saw this first hand in Nova Scotia where in rural communities with poor acess to health care normal people lose everything when they become pain killer addicts.
Another example is having to live, wait and recover away from home and work because maybe one or two cities have the care. This in not reflected in the medical financial loss #s
EasyEs 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
There's a big difference between denial of procedures and denial of insurance. In 2008, Medicare had all time high of denial because of conservative states like Arizona that cut back Medicare coverage of certain surgeries. That being said, HMOs deny coverage completely leading to 45k deaths, Medicare covers everyone 65+ universally.
Thus far you're arguments are from biased think tanks, manipulating data and blatant denial. 45k people die yearly it's a fact.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
(2/2)
- Last time the news checked on her, Healy was alive. Sarkisyan is dead.
The fact that you don't know something as basic as a sample size, or think that the court case where it was ruled legal for an HMO to get away with murder somehow "disproves" that the HMO killed her shows you're barley even a functioning person let alone able to argue healthcare policy.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual
(2/2)
Did you even look into the Healy story? She wasn't denied people with more serious conditions needed surgy over her which happens in the US as well but notice the difference: Sarkisyan died and Healy didn't.
45,000 people die in the US and not a single person has died in Canada from lack of healthcare.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician US women age 40 to 64, 87% of those with insurance had a mammogram within 5 years.
The rate for Canadian women was 65% — the same as for uninsured women in the US.
Canadian women also had the same rate of screening for cervical cancer as uninsured US women (80%), over five years. Among insured US women, the rate was 92%.
Among uninsured US men, 31% were screened for prostate cancer, compared with 16% of Canadian men. For insured US men, the rate was 52%.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
@Joe11Blue
Do you have an actual study that was published somewhere other than the CATO institute?
But even if that was true, the actual outcomes of things like infant mortality, heart disease, life expectancy are much better in Canada.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician No, I do not unfortunately. I'm not willing to accept that Canada's healthcare is better than a Free Market system. In every instance where Government has been involved the cost always goes up.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
@Joe11Blue
Weird because last time I checked Canada's system both has better outcomes in terms of health and is much cheaper.
I guess reality trumps ideology?
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician That was a study done by the O'neill's and pushed by John Goodman.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual "Yep Canada so great!"
It is......Canada has a lower unemployment rate, higher life expectancy, higher literacy rate, higher average standard of living, lower crime rate, safer big cities etc.
And can you actullay refer to a legitimate study (not the biased John Stossel program) that uses actullay data to show that "thousands of Canadians come her for treatment" because if you can't that is simply unsubstantiated rhetoric...And even if that is true it is
yobro250 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Really? Curious how many Canadians are crossing the borders into America for healthcare. And, apparently you haven't heard of all the PRIVATE clinics opening up in Canada. Technically, they're illegal but the Canadian gov't is looking the other way because they can't handle the overload.
neobootsonious 1 month ago 2
@AndroidPolitician I went to school with one who died, I was in about grade 9 when it happened. I only remember her first name - Ashley.
I disagree that the outcomes are better, but the costs are. Interestingly enough the doctors are not paid particularly more in the US; the difference in cost is almost entirely due to the fact that the insurance companies are getting away with scamming the system because the regulations are terrible, and competition is not encouraged at all.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
She died because the healthcare system waited too long? Assuming it's true the media in Canada tries to cover every instance of this I'd be surprised if it wasn't covered.
The outcomes for countries that have single payer are orders of magnitude better than the US and it's because of healthcare. There's no way Canada, France, Australia, Germany etc. are all somehow genetically superior.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician I have not seen outcomes data for various countries so I cannot confirm or deny your claims but I could look it up. I do know however that the US has much more crime and far more prisoners per capita than most first world countries. It also has very poorer rehabilitation outcomes, which further increases crime when prisoners serve their sentences completely. This probably contributes to highly to the costs and outcomes of the health care system.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@theredscourge
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world but it's crime rate isn't all that high.
But healthcare outcomes for things like infant mortality, obesity, heart disease, cancer etc. are hardly related to prisons.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician FRENCH HEALTHCARE System people.
lolrightwingers
TheEthanwashere 1 month ago
It's Thomas Sowell's world, we just live in it.
RJordan0220 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 3 months ago
@555pontifex
Given your comment's popularity, I am convinced that those people who view this video did not, in fact, "elect the wrong black man".
cytr5 3 months ago
Thomas Sowell gets it! Socialism does not work! The record of history is absolutely clear, the only system that brings the masses up is capitalism! Socialism and communism only appeals to those who are jealous of the success of others. Wake up America!
byates59 4 months ago
Thomas Sowell's the sort of smooth soul brother who funk music accompanies when he's walking.
It's a shame he converted in later years to being for state expansion. I guess the youthful fires of opposition burned out.
Kogerii 4 months ago
@Kogerii What do you mean he has been for state expansion? I just read one of his newer books and there was no call for state expansion. If anything it was the other way around. He was a Marxist (even after studying under Friedman) in is youth and converted to classical economics as he grew older.
mixmastermeeks 4 months ago
@mixmastermeeks
Maybe I got it flipped then. Is he employed by anyone now or living off of lectures and book sales?
Kogerii 4 months ago
Thanks Uncle Tom!
GnomesAmok 5 months ago
@GnomesAmok he is your Uncle? you should be proud that one of the smartest men in America is related to you!
yetitracker 4 months ago
@yetitracker
Thomas Sowell is an "uncle Tom", in the colloquial sense, because he is a betrayer of all impoverished minorities around the world with his economic philosophy.
GnomesAmok 4 months ago
@GnomesAmok how is he an uncle tom? because he found a way to rise out of the myriad that is "No Snitching", rap, sports, and welfare are the only routes?
aegis808 4 months ago
@aegis808 WELFARE WAS NOT STARTED TO HELP BLACK FOLKS. THE DOWNFALL OF THE RUST BELT PROBABLY ADVANCED THE WELFARE SYSTEM. THIS UNCLE TOM DON'T UNDERSTANT NOTHING. HE JUST HATE BLACK FOLKS BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY UNCLE TOM SOWELL. PROBABLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD GOT SOME FORM OF WELFARE.
comptonproduction 4 months ago
Comment removed
gdbalck 3 months ago
@gdbalck Who cares. Thomas sowell is the idiot. UNCLE TOM MUTHERFUCKER
comptonproduction 3 months ago
@comptonproduction Is that the best you've got? The retort of an ignorant man? Why was my comment removed? It wasn't exactly inappropriate, to wit, it exposed the true nature of welfare.
gdbalck 3 months ago
@comptonproduction You, sir, are far more likely to be the UTMF. Thomas Sowell, in the same manner as Malcolm X, is a perfect example of a thinking, intelligent, reall man. Versus the all too many lemmings we have today that blindly lead a party (of course, Democratic Party) that was the home of such men as demonic men as Bull Conner and George Wallace who were both instrumental in unleashing dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protestors in the 60's.
Maxbps88 3 months ago
@Maxbps88 YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.THOMAS SOWELL IS SO STUPID, HE'S MORE STUPID THAN A DOG, DOGS ARE MORE INTELLIGENTS THAN HE IS.
comptonproduction 3 months ago
@comptonproduction LMAO, I bet that you think that those that encourage your slavery to the welfare state are intelligent.. don't you?... what a fool u are.
intrepidorator 3 months ago
@comptonproduction LOL!
So let me get this straight. You state no facts or information, but you manage to type out that Sowell is the "mostest stupidest". Even "more stupid than a dog". LOL! I think you must have been looking in the mirror and thinking of yourself.
tomperanteau 3 months ago
@tomperanteau you conservative don't get it. there are more people in this world besides you wacko's.
comptonproduction 3 months ago
@comptonproduction Again, no facts, just name calling. Do you have ANYTHING to offer? Do you know ANYTHING? Do you understand how to debate without the insults? Are you capable of thinking past your emotions to have a rational discussion?
If not, then you set a really poor example for your side of things.
tomperanteau 3 months ago
@tomperanteau i'm at the point now where i don't care what you conservative think. go crawl in a hole.
comptonproduction 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comptonproduction How could you care about what others think when you are not even clear on how YOU think? I don't think you even know your own thoughts on the issues that Sowell brings forward.
tomperanteau 3 months ago
@gdbalck YOU ARE VERY ANTI-SOCIAL. THE ONLY FRIEND YOU GOT IS PROBABLY YOUR DOG, IF HE'S KIND ENOUGH TO HANG OUT WITH YOU.
comptonproduction 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comptonproduction I wonder why my comments keep getting removed...
Perhaps you are censoring me little boy? By marking my posts as spam? It's obvious you can't think for yourself.
gdbalck 3 months ago
@GnomesAmok You are a racist, because he disagrees with you, and he is black, he is an "uncle tom." Hilarious . Racist trash. And i proved it.
lankness1 4 months ago
Slavery with a new slave master...democratic liberals have black people fooled.. and it's sad! This country is going down hill because of liberals who really should be called destroyers
shanana000 6 months ago
I have been watching a lot of videos about Dr. Sowell and on almost all of them the top comment is praising his "brillance" (which is evident) and that is sad because it is not his intelligence that is on display in many of these discussions or lectures, but rather his insight and wisdom, which in all honesty is really just nearly infallible logic aka common sense! something which so many people have lost
MrThundaro 6 months ago
Listen to what he says. He says that we need to look at the results not the intentions. Leftists HATE looking at facts and results. If the American people would just understand what the results are? The leftist would be in dire straights.
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago 7
You guys elected the wrong black man.
555pontifex 11 months ago 156
@555pontifex Amen lol
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
@555pontifex Ain't that the truth....sheesh
thebamf100 5 months ago
@555pontifex lol you aint kiddin.. if paul somehow gets the nomination i think hes going to have him in his administration
xjustin523x 2 months ago
Sowell Speaks the truth.
daPlumber702 11 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good ol bullshit
watch?v=f4BbhJqjqEE
thatsillyliberal 1 year ago
@thatsillyliberal Your link is to a video that does nothing but attack sowell. Obviously lacking the intelligence to attack sowell's ideas. You fail here. goodbye.
daPlumber702 11 months ago
@thatsillyliberal yes, an accurate self description
pretorious700 5 months ago
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then they want you to judge by their intentions rather than the results. Need to strike at the root on that.
trekkerperson 1 year ago 21
Thomas Sowell is a brilliant visionary! God bless him.
nef2442 1 year ago 70
AMEN, Brother Sowell!
BrentJ277 1 year ago