The old standby fear-mongering that “a government bureaucrat will decide your healthcare” can easily be countered with the fact that WE ALREADY HAVE BUREAUCRATS DECIDING OUR HEALTHCARE — INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRATS — and they do not have our best interests at heart, but rather the health of the company....
Having undergone health care in both America and Britain where there is Universal health care i can honestly say that while the quality of health care in America is better , in Britain while the wait may be longer, you dont end up bankrupt! I recently had to defer a knee operation in favor of my wife having a spinal operation. Our insurance deductables were so high we couldnt afford both.
Yes America has got great health care - if you can afford it !
Mohammed was involved in sixty five (65) wars during his tenure and of course he managed to select a few wives from the spoils. Some scholars say that he had at least 12 wives and who is counting after that. Whether he beat all his wives or just Ayesha is a matter of conjecture.
Of course Muslim men had dominion over women and acted accordingly. We should always make an attempt to remember that times were different and what applied then may not now be applicable. Also women are larger now.
This guy clearly has a very poor understanding of the American healthcare system. For instance, he doesn't address the fact that the US has a large amount of healthcare rationing, also has long wait lines (I wager he's never been in an American ER), and completely ignores patient dumping. Instead, he just ends up going on a rant about capitalism and tinfoil hat paranoia about government. Since he's from Canada, maybe he should look up a guy named Tommy Douglas.
here in Missouri we will be paying half a billion to upgrade our state run gamboling addiction therapy clinics, in order to comply with a federal mandate, fortunately, we will be getting a half billion in federal matching funds, so...... it should practically pay for itself .
This guy says many clownish things. In Canada, health professionals you deal with are over-qualified. In the U.S., your paramedic IS a glorified taxi driver. In Canada, they learn a LOT about emergency health care. Also, what drug company is looking for a CURE? That's not the incentive model. It takes a long time to get some medical services in Canada (like an MRI), because people actually GET them...doctors send people who NEED it, it's not insurance companies weasling a way to say "no".
I feel sorry for this guy, he is like a right-wing child throwing his dolls out of his crib.
You do realize that if the capital gains tax loophole concerning offshore bonds was closed, the richest 0.1% of Americans would be able to pay for healthcare for every US citizen.
Also, it would take profit out of the equation too, therefore cheaper for the people who pay for it.
You seem to employ straw-men in almost every single one of your videos, it is a bad habit to get into.
@irishgodfatherchris Actually, private companies do far more testing of their products than the FDA even requires. Matter of fact, most of the products they do allow in the US now are not tested by them at all, they just look at if the company did the testing .... then choose to allow products based on other criteria .... lead in toys anyone?
@KittenKoder you know why those companies test them, its because the FDA tells them to, in my country (Australia) we have several statutory authorities that deal with this stuff and we are grateful for what they do because the last thing we want is to have a drug available that we don't understand the potential side effects.
@irishgodfatherchris Actually, drug companies do testing because in order to make money they have to make you stay alive, otherwise it's all for naught. Did you know that the only reason many of the generics were banned from the US for so long was because the FDA chose to deny them here until they were forced, and I do mean forced, to approve them so people could afford them?
have to wait forever...same here but with a high bill afterwards. The FDA is needed for safety. remember when the fda was not around? the big selling drugs were SNAKE OILS!!!!!
the Canadian system seems similar to how the army health care works, i.e. great. boo hoo i have to get up early and wait a bit. better then going into debt. and its not like you can't open private practices.
I'm a pharmacy student and worked in retail, the issue with the 4-dollar list is that the pharmacy doesn't actually make any money off the drugs on it. In cases, the pharmacy loses money.
Yeah well that's no reason to put the whole country on welfare because a few can't afford it-- that's the reason American SCHOOLS suck so much ass, i.e. because they drag the whole population down to the lowest level, just to be sure that no one will go without an education-- and so literacy levels are now lower than BEFORE public schools. Better to just tend to those few, and leave the rest alone!
Even the Romans knew that a nation benefits from an educated populace. And no, literacy levels are much HIGHER than they were before public education.
Do you even know anyone who can't read? The only ones I know were educated AFTER "No Child Left Behind" which cut education.
If you're upset that a government-run healthcare system means you can't buy your way into the doctors office, I have no pity for you.
Point 1: Whatever. You have no basis for asserting anything about my education.
Points 2 & 3: Actually, we're 45th now (at 99%). EVERY COUNTRY AHEAD OF US HAS SOCIALIZED EDUCATION.
Point 4: Whatever. Your pathetic allegory seems to assume that a nation benefits from its' population being stupid and sick. A position which, itself, is stupid and sick. You seem to adhere to the philosophy of Ayn Rand who, herself, ended up accepting government healthcare.
You obviously missed my addendum. Since 1850 literacy has gone up from 66% to 99%. Your concern about where we rank compared to other nations is irrelevant to your own argument.
I never said anything about ownership of the populace, but we ARE a nation and, as a nation, we all benefit from a fit and intelligent populace.
Your unfounded attempts at insulting me indicate that you know your position is weak.
No,you're a Marxist and an idiot who's never heard the basic fables as a kid... like the Grasshopper and the Ant, the Three Little Pigs and the Little Red Hen, stories about the importance of self-determination--- or Little Red Riding Hood, about how socialism is a wolf in sheep's clothing that comes first for the elderly and then for the young.
Apparently you would rather the elderly just die off and seem to think everyone who has a financial disadvantage is in that position because they are lazy.
I don't particularly care for Marxism.
It's just a fact that our economy functions better with an educated populace. Even if only 99% of it can read compared to the 66% you are so nostalgic for.
You seem really touchy about this topic. Touchy enough to troll.
@qabala "Apparently you would rather the elderly just die off and seem to think everyone who has a financial disadvantage is in that position because they are lazy."
Flew over your head, I see.
"I don't particularly care for Marxism. It's just a fact that our economy functions better with an educated populace."
So you claim the populace should be held slave to the interest of the economy but say you're not a Marxist.
The only "fact" is that you're completely full of shit.
You're suggesting that a better economy is worse for the people?
In fact, I am interested in a better economy because I am a capitalist.
It's obviously you who is full of shit since you gave the useless statistic of our nations literacy rate compared to other countries as if it, in any way, implicates government-run healthcare when, in reality, the literacy rate has only increased since its' inception.
Providing education to the masses is getting in people's business?
People like Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, etc. are always sticking their noses into public affairs. I'm sure you aren't accusing them of being Marxist.
Really? You're going to give me shit over a typo rather than address my point? You were wrong and I called you on it.
But since we're being pedantic...
"Listen pal-- "
You do realize that this is a written forum, right?
Actually we are at gun point but for different reasons. If we chose private of home school you still have to pay taxes, and a certain percentage of the taxes go to schools. If you decide not to pay you taxes the government tries to get you in jail. If you resist they SHOOT YOU.
Obviously, every governmental system has an underlying premise of retribution behind every law, including tax laws (No argument about that at all), but there is no entity forcing kids to go to school and be indoctrinated, as SovereignStatesman claims, You retain the right, as a parent, to educate your kids.
yes but part of your freedom is taken away through taxes; that's why i don't like them. You are correct that parents have the right to home school their children but the parents freedom are still taken away through taxes regardless if their children are in a public school, home school, or private school.
@RStarvling Your view is narrow. People who have no children pay for public schools as well. Why? Because the kids being educated now will be running the country and contributing to the economy when you retire.
What about the parents who pay for their children for private school. They aren't exempted from that kind of tax, in fact they are helping the public school with their subsidizing. But that's just one example
@RStarvling Good point, but If they were exempted then the school system would be even more polarized than it is now. While it is one thing to argue that people deserve to benefit from their own merits and efforts, some children should not be even more disadvantaged than others because of their parents.
@DRDFOX In what sense are you saying that the public schools are "polarized?" I guess you are saying that some children should not have an advantage that other children do not have as a consequence of their parents financial conditions. But children receive all kinds of benefits from their parents. Some children are smarter than others or they inherit some musical talent from their parents. Do you propose to handicap smart or talented children to de-polarize the public schools?
@RStarvling The polarization I am referr to is prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage. Creating a massive tax incentive would make it worse. You're correct there other advantages we can't and should not control., but the least that can be done is make everone a contributer towards education for ALL children. This is not the same as other "socialized" prorammes as children have no choice. Universal Education is a proven investemnt in any free market economy
@DRDFOX What is the nature of the "polarization" ... what "advantage." You need to justify to me how a hazard accrues from "polarization." Doesn't the same hazard accumulate from the natural differences in talent and academic ability of students - irregardless of their economic class. And don't you need to address that by, say, handicapping the talented students? When you hand me a list of "shoulds" you yield the logic to me - because I have a list of should too!.
@RStarvling I acknowledge you are making logical arguments here, but equating the existence of inequalities we accept does not infer that we should exaserbate them create new ones. Moving from pure logic to pragamtism, the education of all childen is one that benefits the financial well being of any country and ehances both individual ability for economic activity and personal responsibility. The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step.
@DRDFOX You don't make the same argument for equality in education at the college level. do you? In the US, Harvard and Yale accept only the very best students..There is a profound "polarizaton" between this "Ivy League" and the community colleges. Can't I invoke one of your "shoulds" to force a depolarization of higher education.If you say yes, aren't you arguing against that pragmatic position you just made: I mean you're then arguing that the Ivy League "should" lower their standards?
@RStarvling Invoking me to say yes to something I never mentioned in the first place is a curious way of staging a 'strawman' to try and advance your point of view. In fact I have argued for neither the end nor a contination of any existing 'inequalities' I also did not say that standards should be lowered Selection process for hubs of accademic excellence is right and correct but is non sequitur to my opinion that public schools for children should be funded by all taxpayers.
@DRDFOX I thought you cited "prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage.[sic]" You called this "polarization" and then you made an appeal to pragmatism - You said "The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step." If exacerbating polarization is bad then why do you not agree that it should be reduced? If polarization is a practical detriment at lower grades - then surely the same detriment accrues at the higher levels - no strawman at all.
@RStarvling When you ask whether I would create a handicaps, I think you are misinterpeting my criticism of polarity as a desire to eliminate it for its OWN sake (I can think of Marxists who seek more equality by bringing everyone down). There is a profound difference between this and wanting to improve the chance of one group or ensure their resources are not worsended - which would be a consequence of a few having the option to divert tax contributions away from public schools
@DRDFOX We agree on the malignancy of a Marxist element seeking equality of result by bringing everyone down. (Von Mises refers to this as the Fourier complex.) But what are you saying after that?
@RStarvling I'm going to put universities to the side only because their functions are more complex than the just provision of education which, interesting as they may be, would detract from the discussion.
@DRDFOX I object to this notion that you reserve to yourself a privilege deciding what detracts from the discussion. To repeat! You cited "prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage.[sic]" You said "The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step." If exacerbating polarization is bad then why do you not agree that it should be reduced? And if polarization is good in the university setting (?) why not at the lower level? Please answer.
@RStarling I'm not excluding it to excercise a privaledge. If we start talking about why the reasons why I think diffrerent rules apply to the universities we will end up going off on a tangent about things that are not relevant to schools. A short answer and by no means covering everything is that the purpose of universityes iis not to provide an education but to advance and preserve knowledge. They could theoretically choose not to teach if they wanted!
@DRDFOX Fine. I don't think you wish to address the fundamental nexus of your idea which is that polarization is bad and should not be exacerbated (your words or something to that effect.) The polarization between Harvard and Massachusetts Community College is as profound as any you will find. Should it be reduced? You don't want to answer.
@RStarvling "Fine. I don't think you wish to address the fundamental nexus of your idea which is that polarization is bad " Universities pick accademically talented students when they have already completed school and (I repeat) their duties and purpose are not the same as for schools in the first place so they are diffeernt The nexus of my argument was not polarization in school education shold not be worsened on the basis of parental wealth.
@DRDFOX Furthermore parents who use private education are not using a benefit they are entitled to. Let's say it cost the state $8000 to educate a child. Private school children relieve the state of that liability. And they are receiving a superior education. So providing tax relief to families of private school children, makes more money available per pupil in the public schools and give incentive for more families to make use of superior private schools - Strawman? I don't think so.
@RStarvling I am slightly perplexed as to wwhy you have put the strawman comment at the end as if the preceding statement denounces it. What you say here and what I placed as a strawman tactic are two separate things (how ironic a strawman against the strawman LOL) . If what you are saying is that personal expenditure on education can be offest againt income a capped amoiunt may be acceptable (it's not the same as removing the whole amount from the tax bill as I thought you meant)
@DRDFOX No you understood correctly. I think the entire amount of the cost of each child should be ceded to the parent. I think that public schools as bureaucratic agencies of the government should be abolished. The notion that tax money should be used to fund education has merit - but the best way to do that is to provide the funding individually in the form of vouchers to families who then shop for and determine the best schools in a competitive market.
@DRDFOX It does not increase the amount of money available. However, it increases the amount per pupil. Money that would have been spent on children that are removed from the public system becomes available to spend on those remaining in the public schools. I propose instead, to simply provide the funding in the form of vouchers to families and require all schools, public and private to compete for students. This is very controversial in the States because it threatens teacher union interests.
@RStarvling You said "It does not increase the amount of money available. However, it increases the amount per pupil. Money that would have been spent on children that are removed from the public system becomes available to spend on those remaining in.. public schools." IF the REFUNDED cost of each child includes all fixed costs then the SAME amount of money per pupil is left in the system. IF there are less puplis in it the propotion of the fixed must increase - economies of scale
@RStarvling You may not agree with what I said or even be inpressed with the argument, but I don't know if you have understood what a strawman is. A strawman is specifically a misrepresentation of another's position which is used to as the basis of argument rather than the actual position expoused by the intended target. This why I said invoking me to say something I had not already said could be seen as an attempt to create s strawman.
@DRDFOX And if I may? I would like to just make another point about government funding of schools. The notion that education is provided by government is inexorably connected with control of the curriculum. I'd like to suggest that a free society is at risk when any government controls education. Certain ideas are of service to government which are not in harmony with the exercise of freedom. Free people control their children's education. It means that we must also tolerate aberration.
@RStarvling A neocon paranoid view of 'any' government control? But seriously. Accademia can still have strong independent controls separate to Gov. and EVEN if you are right consider that before state ran education there wasn't universal education What you will create here is a system that runs like business with good schools and bad schools. Some children become the beneficiaries of the system. Others will be the victims. IMHO this isn't moral AND is bad for the future economy
@DRDFOX I think a strawman is a dummy argument that mis-characterizes a position. It is something you flail and is easy to beat but does not characterize the true position of your opponent. That's kind of how I felt when you were characterizing polarization and making, what I think are unsupported claims about why it is bad.
@qabala Actually, I know a fair amount of adults who are illiterate or near illiterate. I moved a lot as a kid, and in some of the schools I attended, general literacy was terrible. I was lucky enough to have attended a private kindergarten and to have parents who encouraged reading from a young age. The problem with public education isn't that it drags everyone down, it's that it doesn't solve the quality disparities tied to a locality's constituent wealth, and it becomes inefficient to boot.
You'll get no argument from me about that, however, I still stand by the statement that an educated populace is better for the economy than an illiterate one.
It depends on how you define "literacy." Idiots like quabala who can't write in proper sentences and use possessive pronounds like "a dog licks it's balls" are case in point.
Public education is pure totalitarian dictatorship, rationalized as "the greater good" by little tin gods like this asshole: ; as William Pitt wrote, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Yeah well funds are limited, so a balance must be struck between due caution and excess cost.
Government can't increase these funds, it can only WASTE them; so you'll get WORSE care with more government.
A doctor is an expert not only in performing tests, but making the call on whether they're NECESSARY. If a doctor orders unnecessary tests then he can be sued for padding the bill, just like for malpractice if he doesn't order necessary ones.
@MrByronodmon Then now we know. The testing phase for a new drug could and should be the first people willing to take it to try to cure themselves of terrible diseases.
@SovereignStatesman Not when the side effects do more then the actual medicine does. Its funny you claim to not want the Government invovled in your healthcare insurance but yet you would want a Doctor who know nothing about dealing with insurance money only in dealing with medicine and you call me moron. Whats next you want a plumber to teach you brain surgery
Also the reason why cures aren't being put into production isn't because of FDA intervention, it's the oh so unfortunate truth that cures... aren't... exploitable. Once you give a patient a cure, they no longer have an ailment, which means they will not continue to buy your medicine. I agree with a lot of the messages in your videos, however I would advise you to reassess your position on big pharmaceutical companies, as they're the ones who suppress (not inhibit) medical progress.
@StevenCrowder I would just like you to know that your Russian comment was extremely offensive. They aren't bears on tricycles, they're bears on unicycles. Why you ask? How many sickles are there in the Russian national symbol? Answer: one. One (single) = uni. Uni-sickle.... Unicycle.
I am from sweden and here we allso wait when we get to the hospital. The wait is due to how serius the injuries etc is. Its a good system. Always open, 24 hours. If its serius they aaaalwaays takes care of you issue directly.. but if you go there with a cold.. like many people do then the que gets bigger. so its more wrong with the people then with the system. If alla people where normal without haaving the need to harasing the hospitals the system should work more then better.
Yeah that's what I want, sitting there all day in a waiting-room around people with colds and other contagious diseases.... there's a SLIGHT problem with that if you get sicker in the hospital than out. Better to just call and make an appointment with a doctor you can see when you get there.
@SovereignStatesman no, that's exactly what stupid conservatives do not want because they don't want to pay for others, because it doesn't reward them. But they don't realise that this might save their life or their children life if they can't afford it someday.
"Blindly trusting the government" This is the problem with many US citizens, they still think that the governement is the enemy and that they must keep their guns to be ready to do another revolution.
DAMN RIGHT-- of course you'd rather be like in Germany, China, Russia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia or the other places where 200 million were murdered because they HAD no guns.
Conservatives just don't want to pay for others to walk around drunk and stoned all day.
@SovereignStatesman I don't think US citizens will get murdered as heavy as it was in low developped countries like Rwanda and such. Those countries can't even afford a good sytem/police. You should take Germany and Russia out of this though, that doesn't make any sense.
Can you show me statistics about the 'fraction' of people who cannot afford insurances? You seem to forget people that lives in really bad conditions in ghettos and such that can't afford insurances.
Sorry, too many to name. Basic math (fractions), history (genocide) and social policy (the number of people in ghettos) are utterly over your head.
To wit: >"Can you show me statistics about the 'fraction' of people who cannot afford insurances? You seem to forget people that lives in really bad conditions in ghettos and such that can't afford insurances."
Yes, these are a SMALL FRACTION of the total population.
I can't communicate through that level of density.
@SovereignStatesman sorry, it's true about the genocide in Germany, I forgot things like the Crystal night and other jews genocide were jews were not really able to defend themselves, even if with guns they would have been overruned by the germans
You're a fail. First you don't even know about the fucking Holocaust, and now you're ignorant of of the uprising in the Polish Ghetto in 1943 when 9 Jews held off 1000 men of the SS for over a month with 9 guns. In the end, the Nazis could not face the threat of snipers and alley way attacks.
Now if 9 Jews could hold off 1000 Nazis for 9 months, then 300 million armed American citizens could hold off the world forever.
And Germany was only a SMALL FRACTION of mass-murder.
@SovereignStatesman Woah, you think I don't know about the holocaust? But I didn't know that they held so many germans with 9 guns. And it's not because the laws on guns were not stricts that jews, people from Rwanda, etc, got killed. It's because they didn't have GUNS AT ALL. Why? Because they prefer buying food for their kids over guns. They could have bought guns if they wanted too, I don't think there was strict gun laws back in 1940
@SovereignStatesman I just love your logic: "The problem is that liberals derive a rule from an exception, and conservatives deny exceptions to the rule." I'm guessing you're a conservative, so you deny exceptions to the rule - yet you think civillians owning weapons is more than okay because there was 1 case during WWII where jews successfully defended themselves with guns. Talk about coherence!
And don't worry, America's wars are fought abroad, it's never on your soil for some weird reason.
That's just it-- you DON'T see the bill; so it's a HIDDEN COST.
I personally wanna SEE what I'M paying for!
The system "works" only in the sense that no one complains, and no one complains because it's useless-- and you can always go to the US as the world's emergency-room!
AND there's the propaganda of the UN only rating health-care on the basis of what the countries REPORT, vs. doing ACTUAL RESEARCH into what's actually there!
@SovereignStatesman You SEE the bill! It's your taxes! It's not free like some people think, it's paid by taxes from everybody. This way everybody can acess it, of course you will wait a bit more than in USA, but at least you can have it.
You can't exactly cost-compare, or refuse to pay taxes if you don't like the service.
You're out the money, simple as that.
Also you end up paying for other people who place themselves at a higher risk-level, and the only alternative is a prison-state where they control your every move.
CHOICE is FREEDOM--- freedom of CHOICE!
And NO ONE is denied care in the US; junkies simply aren't given the free high that they come looking for, so they CLAIM they're "being denied!"
Crowder is a walking douchebag, I'll give you that; even conservatives like Debbie Schlussel say -- VERBATIM-- that he's full of shit and pulls facts out of his ass, and that he gives honest conservatives a bad name with his lies and crap-research statistics.
However he's correct that Canada's health-care is more red tape than bandages.
If you can't afford TO WAIT you can still pay to private. Also, if you have urgent problems, of course you will past first, if your foot is hurting you're going to wait. And yes of course maybe people died while waiting, but WAY MORE died in USA because they couldn't afford it. Just look, Canada is doing way better than USA right now.
@bengacris "If you can't afford TO WAIT you can still pay to private."
And if you can't afford to pay private, because the government took all your money to pay public?
YOU'RE FUCKED WITHOUT A WHORE!
See this is what libs just don't get: the "limited" part of LIMITED RESOURCES!
To libotards, government is a horn of plenty that never runs dry; and so when the clowns run the circus, they wonder where it all went, and start finger-pointing-- as people DIE!!!
@SovereignStatesman It's something that you don't understand. If you don't want to wait, go to private, if you can't afford private go back to public. It's the best of both worlds. ONE thing that people fighting against socialised healthcare don't understand is that people with a heart attack won't wait in a line. If your foot hurt a bit, of course you will wait, because some people with way more dangerous problems need to pass first.
@SovereignStatesman Yes there is people dieing while waiting, or having bad injuries. But in USA you have way more people dieing in the streets because they just CAN'T AFFORD healthcare at all. What is better, waiting in a line for 5 hours to get your treatement or not having your treatement AT ALL?
And again, if you don't want to wait 5 hours because your foot hurts a little, just go to private.
Since health-care is simply a matter of risk-management, then it's essential under the General Welfare clause to impose such a tax to insure against the inevitable. Likewise, those who can afford their own insurance, are free to do so and avoid the added tax.
However when anyone isn't insured, that imposes an absolute cost on everyone else-- which the government has a duty to indemnify itself against, by exacting it via a tax.
@SovereignStatesman well this is a good solution. I think it would be more appropraite for the US, at least it would be better than the current abscence of it.
Well putting everyone on welfare just to help the poor, is simply stupid, and blindly trusting the government with your health more than you trust yourself and your doctor, is even stupider.
But that's EXACTLY what idiots like Bill Maher want.
The problem is that liberals derive a rule from an exception, and conservatives deny exceptions to the rule.
In reality, only a FRACTION cannot afford insurance, while most simply do without it and take chances with other people's nickel-- since when you have 300 million people, you don't have RISKS of needing health-care-- you have RATES of it.
Like I said, it's a matter of risk-MANAGEMENT, and if they won't manage their own then the state MUST out of general welfare.
@SovereignStatesman "In reality, only a FRACTION cannot afford insurance, while most simply do without it and take chances with other people's nickel--" The problem is that even the insured can get chronic conditions that insurance is all too often inadequate to cover and the cost of prescriptions and exlcuded care is what ruins these people who HAVE had the sense to take out the insurance.
...the guy who invented the polio vaccine did not patent it so that it can be made freely available for the entire humanity, his name was Jonas Salk. I am sure some people today can follow his example...You speak without any fundamental understanding of the issues you wish to wish to advocate. Try being more humble like Mr. Salk...
@StevenCrowder And who says conservatives have no sense of humor and aren't funny ? LOL look at the high, loud, fast talking Jew over emoting like he has Tourettes , he's a laugh riot. LOL
Better to have basic medical care than no medical care which is what a large percentage of Americans have and I bet you you've never lived in Canada there Duddy Kravitz eh ?
I saw your other video - the truth about Health care in Canada...you went to one place, in one city. Don't be hate'n just because you don't have what EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD has.
@crypticrevival You do realize that every other industrialized nation in the word that has socialized healthcare has lost drug innovation and countless of tax payer dollars? Not only that, but they have less young people aspiring to be doctors and healthcare practitioners. Thus, you get less qualified people to do a job that should have very high standards.
Well at least we don't have a giganormous national debt and we're not on verge of having our houses seized by banks, face it the US is crumbling, and Canada still remains strong (you could say, as always)
@lubi125 yup, after the economic crisis we already recovered 5/6 of our lost jobs, Canada is still standing while USA economy is crumbling. Canada is ruled by statistics and working solutions. USA is ruled by emotions wich is the worst thing to rule a country.
@bengacris Always remember, Skynet from the Matrix movies was also constructed with the aim of being ruled by statistics and reason to come to working solutions:)
@halolover2dmax You didn't say U.S. involvement, you said he 'started' 4 more wars. You listed only 3. Being involved is NOT the same as starting. And what war in Saudi Arabia?? Not to mention, the others were considered more of an armed conflict than a war. And not costing the Trillion of Iraq.
I admit I screwed up on the started and 4. Involved in and 3. Armed conflict or not, U.S, resources where dedicated to them, costing us money AND potential US troops. BTW, the one who screwed us up was FDR, not Regan...
@halolover2dmax Actually it was because of the Montreal protocol signed by Ronald Reagan, with the bill brought in and finalized by the Bush adminstration in Nov./ 2008 that inhalers with CFC's would be banned by Dec. 31st/2011. Obama had NOTHING to do with it.
@MadHabber93 I never said that. Obama has nearly doubled the deficit and Started 4 more wars, He also acts without congress and believes that the constitution is an outdated peace of paper. Like I said, there are PLENTY of other things to blame him for. What we really need is another Washington or Reagan.
@halolover2dmax 4 more wars?? Please enlighten me on this one.
Reagan was the one that signed the CFC bill, that led to the banning of your puffer. He also doubled your DEBT at the time, let alone deficit. Obama inherited a mess from Bush.
No, no, no. This is how a blood test would go (and I've had blood tests in Canada plenty of times.) You make an appointment with your doctor. In 1-2 weeks you get an appointment. You wait in the waiting room for 15min. You go into doctor's office and they say you need a blood test. They give you a piece of paper to get the blood test. You go to the blood test place and wait about 15-20 min to get a blood test.
@55Freya Your right, I usually see my doc the same day or next day. I've never waited longer than 20 min. for a blood test. Your worse than a gullible American.
@MadHabber93 How am I worse than a gullible american? I LIVE in Canada, I have had TERRIBLE healthcare situations, one almost cost my son his LIFE. Bc YOU live in some fab place with great service don't think the rest of the country gets it. Talk about gullible. Your a twit.
@55Freya Yet I've seen countless B.C. residents post the exact opposite of your experience, and when looking at polls of your province, well over 80% are also fully satisfied with the care they have received. Along with the rest of the country. You're entitled to have a bad experience, but painting with a broad brush that its the norm is horse shit.
You say above 'not in most places' when it comes to blood tests. Sorry to burst your bubble, its the norm.
@MadHabber93 Not in BC AB or MB, where I live now. You live in a fantasy world. Our healthcare is ok if you don't have anything serious and hardly get sick, or if you have an emergency like a heart attack...bc then your moved to the top of the list. Everyone else gets screwed and we pay for it.
@55Freya Our healthcare, in my opinion and the majority, excells when its serioius. Again, in those provinces listed, satisfaction of our system is high. There is no fantasy world on my part. Is it perfect, no, but the alternative of a for profit, insurance run system that leaves Millions without ANY care at all is NOT the answer.
Don’t forget that even if you get FDA approval if one tenth of one percent of people using your drug gets that tummy ach you’ll have Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe advertizing on afternoon tv that they will get the maximum compensation you are entitled to.
I really am not going to get into this debate. But please people stop saying it's free. Nothing is free. It's all payed for by taxes and in Canada I know you have to pay for extras like phones and t.v's. I don't defended either system because american healthcare clearly sucks. But socialized healthcare isn't the answer.
mr moron.
The old standby fear-mongering that “a government bureaucrat will decide your healthcare” can easily be countered with the fact that WE ALREADY HAVE BUREAUCRATS DECIDING OUR HEALTHCARE — INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRATS — and they do not have our best interests at heart, but rather the health of the company....
"
hrantnano 1 day ago
you are an idiot !!! I lived in canada and US... and sweden ..healthcare is light years ahead of US...
you are living in the medieval ages ,when it comes to health care... no 1 reason for personal BANKRUPTCY in us is due to healthcare thieves!!!
hrantnano 1 day ago
MEDICINE SHOULD NOT BE FREE. But it should be CHEAP!
ian27293 4 days ago
Who is paying this guy to say this stuff about Canadian health care? getting paid by US medical care lobby's??
MrVillamike 4 days ago
Having undergone health care in both America and Britain where there is Universal health care i can honestly say that while the quality of health care in America is better , in Britain while the wait may be longer, you dont end up bankrupt! I recently had to defer a knee operation in favor of my wife having a spinal operation. Our insurance deductables were so high we couldnt afford both.
Yes America has got great health care - if you can afford it !
MrMaxTruth 6 days ago
Mohammed was involved in sixty five (65) wars during his tenure and of course he managed to select a few wives from the spoils. Some scholars say that he had at least 12 wives and who is counting after that. Whether he beat all his wives or just Ayesha is a matter of conjecture.
Of course Muslim men had dominion over women and acted accordingly. We should always make an attempt to remember that times were different and what applied then may not now be applicable. Also women are larger now.
TheTortuguero 1 week ago
This guy clearly has a very poor understanding of the American healthcare system. For instance, he doesn't address the fact that the US has a large amount of healthcare rationing, also has long wait lines (I wager he's never been in an American ER), and completely ignores patient dumping. Instead, he just ends up going on a rant about capitalism and tinfoil hat paranoia about government. Since he's from Canada, maybe he should look up a guy named Tommy Douglas.
MrRoboto81 1 week ago
Canadas medi-care is fantastic, it has never done me wrong.
xsoulkidx 2 weeks ago 2
here in Missouri we will be paying half a billion to upgrade our state run gamboling addiction therapy clinics, in order to comply with a federal mandate, fortunately, we will be getting a half billion in federal matching funds, so...... it should practically pay for itself .
halloranedward 2 weeks ago
This guy says many clownish things. In Canada, health professionals you deal with are over-qualified. In the U.S., your paramedic IS a glorified taxi driver. In Canada, they learn a LOT about emergency health care. Also, what drug company is looking for a CURE? That's not the incentive model. It takes a long time to get some medical services in Canada (like an MRI), because people actually GET them...doctors send people who NEED it, it's not insurance companies weasling a way to say "no".
newguy33X 2 weeks ago
@newguy33X Maybe this is satire, and I didn't catch that...someone correct me.
newguy33X 2 weeks ago
I feel sorry for this guy, he is like a right-wing child throwing his dolls out of his crib.
You do realize that if the capital gains tax loophole concerning offshore bonds was closed, the richest 0.1% of Americans would be able to pay for healthcare for every US citizen.
Also, it would take profit out of the equation too, therefore cheaper for the people who pay for it.
You seem to employ straw-men in almost every single one of your videos, it is a bad habit to get into.
ec123456789able 2 weeks ago
The FDA is the worst cancer in the US.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder the FDA is the reason why you didn't have thalidomide babies.
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris FDA is also why people can't get joint resurfacing instead of the more expensive and painful replacement.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder it exists for a reason, would you like you use a drug that hasn't been tested
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris Actually, private companies do far more testing of their products than the FDA even requires. Matter of fact, most of the products they do allow in the US now are not tested by them at all, they just look at if the company did the testing .... then choose to allow products based on other criteria .... lead in toys anyone?
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder you know why those companies test them, its because the FDA tells them to, in my country (Australia) we have several statutory authorities that deal with this stuff and we are grateful for what they do because the last thing we want is to have a drug available that we don't understand the potential side effects.
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris Actually, drug companies do testing because in order to make money they have to make you stay alive, otherwise it's all for naught. Did you know that the only reason many of the generics were banned from the US for so long was because the FDA chose to deny them here until they were forced, and I do mean forced, to approve them so people could afford them?
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
If this suposed to be entertaining as well as informative it fails miserably both ways.
Kharmazov 2 weeks ago
this guy is 1. A douche. 2. Not funny. 3. An idiot.
wafcake 3 weeks ago
@wafcake
Well you sir are indeed a master of the obvious;-)
Kharmazov 2 weeks ago
have to wait forever...same here but with a high bill afterwards. The FDA is needed for safety. remember when the fda was not around? the big selling drugs were SNAKE OILS!!!!!
noliesundead 3 weeks ago
the Canadian system seems similar to how the army health care works, i.e. great. boo hoo i have to get up early and wait a bit. better then going into debt. and its not like you can't open private practices.
noliesundead 3 weeks ago
I'm a pharmacy student and worked in retail, the issue with the 4-dollar list is that the pharmacy doesn't actually make any money off the drugs on it. In cases, the pharmacy loses money.
mattrR678 3 weeks ago
nice use of the straw liberal.
carminav25 3 weeks ago
goddamn steven you are a very unfunny man
bojanks15 3 weeks ago
Lol his description of Canadian healthcare sounds identical to an emergency room visit in USA. Lol only in USA you have to pay for it.
OneNationUnderCanada 1 month ago
For those of us who can't afford healthcare in the US, even your nightmare description of Canadian medicine is an improvement.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala
Yeah well that's no reason to put the whole country on welfare because a few can't afford it-- that's the reason American SCHOOLS suck so much ass, i.e. because they drag the whole population down to the lowest level, just to be sure that no one will go without an education-- and so literacy levels are now lower than BEFORE public schools. Better to just tend to those few, and leave the rest alone!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Comment removed
qabala 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Go fuck yourself, you elitist sack of shit.
Even the Romans knew that a nation benefits from an educated populace. And no, literacy levels are much HIGHER than they were before public education.
Do you even know anyone who can't read? The only ones I know were educated AFTER "No Child Left Behind" which cut education.
If you're upset that a government-run healthcare system means you can't buy your way into the doctors office, I have no pity for you.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala
Of course; mercy is only for the STRONG-- which leaves you out, especially in the head.
FACT: In 1850, the US had the highest literacy-rate in the world at the time.
Today, the US ranks 20th in global literacy..
As for "elitist," I'm just an ant who paid his dues, not a grasshopper who thinks the world owes him a living.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Point 1: Whatever. You have no basis for asserting anything about my education.
Points 2 & 3: Actually, we're 45th now (at 99%). EVERY COUNTRY AHEAD OF US HAS SOCIALIZED EDUCATION.
Point 4: Whatever. Your pathetic allegory seems to assume that a nation benefits from its' population being stupid and sick. A position which, itself, is stupid and sick. You seem to adhere to the philosophy of Ayn Rand who, herself, ended up accepting government healthcare.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala "Point 1: Whatever. You have no basis for asserting anything about my education."
Aside from the obvious fact you don't HAVE any.
"Points 2 & 3: Actually, we're 45th now"
Even more!
"EVERY COUNTRY AHEAD OF US HAS SOCIALIZED EDUCATION."
Yeah well obviously if we want to get ahead of them, we'll ditch ours. Idiot.
Point 4: a nation does not OWN its population, asshole!
That's called SLAVERY!
Point 5: right at the top of your had, just like your dunce-cap.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Oh look! Personal attacks! How juvenile!
You obviously missed my addendum. Since 1850 literacy has gone up from 66% to 99%. Your concern about where we rank compared to other nations is irrelevant to your own argument.
I never said anything about ownership of the populace, but we ARE a nation and, as a nation, we all benefit from a fit and intelligent populace.
Your unfounded attempts at insulting me indicate that you know your position is weak.
qabala 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qabala
More like adden-DUMB.
"We" = first person COLLECTIVE.
Listen pal-- there is no "we." I'm smart, you're dumb. I'm right, you're wrong. I'm big, you're small. And there's NOTHING you can do about it!
"I never said anything about ownership of the populace,"
Yeah you do, when you tell people what they should think and do ala forced indoctrination.
"we ARE a nation"
STRIKE THREE! Thanks for playing.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
OK.
I get it.
You're a troll.
And a conspiracy theorist.
That's really cute.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala
No,you're a Marxist and an idiot who's never heard the basic fables as a kid... like the Grasshopper and the Ant, the Three Little Pigs and the Little Red Hen, stories about the importance of self-determination--- or Little Red Riding Hood, about how socialism is a wolf in sheep's clothing that comes first for the elderly and then for the young.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Apparently you would rather the elderly just die off and seem to think everyone who has a financial disadvantage is in that position because they are lazy.
I don't particularly care for Marxism.
It's just a fact that our economy functions better with an educated populace. Even if only 99% of it can read compared to the 66% you are so nostalgic for.
You seem really touchy about this topic. Touchy enough to troll.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala "Apparently you would rather the elderly just die off and seem to think everyone who has a financial disadvantage is in that position because they are lazy."
Flew over your head, I see.
"I don't particularly care for Marxism. It's just a fact that our economy functions better with an educated populace."
So you claim the populace should be held slave to the interest of the economy but say you're not a Marxist.
The only "fact" is that you're completely full of shit.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
You're suggesting that a better economy is worse for the people?
In fact, I am interested in a better economy because I am a capitalist.
It's obviously you who is full of shit since you gave the useless statistic of our nations literacy rate compared to other countries as if it, in any way, implicates government-run healthcare when, in reality, the literacy rate has only increased since its' inception.
you are a stereotypical lawyer and spin fan.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala "You're suggesting that a better economy is worse for the people?"
I'm suggesting you anal control-freaks mind your own fucking business.
"I am interested in a better economy because I am a capitalist."
No,you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong because you are a MARXIST PRAGMATIST. A capitalist minds HIS OWN BUSINESS.
"the literacy rate has only increased since its' inception."
Ironic you would use the word IT'S as a possessive pronoun when fapping on literacy
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Providing education to the masses is getting in people's business?
People like Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, etc. are always sticking their noses into public affairs. I'm sure you aren't accusing them of being Marxist.
Really? You're going to give me shit over a typo rather than address my point? You were wrong and I called you on it.
But since we're being pedantic...
"Listen pal-- "
You do realize that this is a written forum, right?
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala
You're too dumb to be a smartass.
"providing education to the masses is getting in people's business?"
At government gunpoint, uh-YEAH!
"You're going to give me shit over a typo"
No typo, it's how you write-- constantly.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Nobody is doing it at gunpoint. You're free to send your kid to a private school or homeschool it.
And I suppose you haven't noticed your sentences often end in prepositions and, just as often, are internally redundant.
Try actually addressing my point. You're a troll!
qabala 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qabala
"I suppose you haven't noticed your sentences often end in prepositions"
Well this doesn't:
You're a fucking idiot-- ASSHOLE!
You're just too much of a fucking idiot to continue this, as you've ceased to amuse me since you're so retarded.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@qabala
Actually we are at gun point but for different reasons. If we chose private of home school you still have to pay taxes, and a certain percentage of the taxes go to schools. If you decide not to pay you taxes the government tries to get you in jail. If you resist they SHOOT YOU.
RStarvling 1 month ago
@RStarvling
Obviously, every governmental system has an underlying premise of retribution behind every law, including tax laws (No argument about that at all), but there is no entity forcing kids to go to school and be indoctrinated, as SovereignStatesman claims, You retain the right, as a parent, to educate your kids.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala
yes but part of your freedom is taken away through taxes; that's why i don't like them. You are correct that parents have the right to home school their children but the parents freedom are still taken away through taxes regardless if their children are in a public school, home school, or private school.
RStarvling 4 weeks ago
@RStarvling Your view is narrow. People who have no children pay for public schools as well. Why? Because the kids being educated now will be running the country and contributing to the economy when you retire.
DRDFOX 3 weeks ago
@DRDFOX
What about the parents who pay for their children for private school. They aren't exempted from that kind of tax, in fact they are helping the public school with their subsidizing. But that's just one example
RStarvling 3 weeks ago
@RStarvling Good point, but If they were exempted then the school system would be even more polarized than it is now. While it is one thing to argue that people deserve to benefit from their own merits and efforts, some children should not be even more disadvantaged than others because of their parents.
DRDFOX 3 weeks ago
@DRDFOX In what sense are you saying that the public schools are "polarized?" I guess you are saying that some children should not have an advantage that other children do not have as a consequence of their parents financial conditions. But children receive all kinds of benefits from their parents. Some children are smarter than others or they inherit some musical talent from their parents. Do you propose to handicap smart or talented children to de-polarize the public schools?
RStarvling 3 weeks ago
@RStarvling The polarization I am referr to is prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage. Creating a massive tax incentive would make it worse. You're correct there other advantages we can't and should not control., but the least that can be done is make everone a contributer towards education for ALL children. This is not the same as other "socialized" prorammes as children have no choice. Universal Education is a proven investemnt in any free market economy
DRDFOX 3 weeks ago
@DRDFOX What is the nature of the "polarization" ... what "advantage." You need to justify to me how a hazard accrues from "polarization." Doesn't the same hazard accumulate from the natural differences in talent and academic ability of students - irregardless of their economic class. And don't you need to address that by, say, handicapping the talented students? When you hand me a list of "shoulds" you yield the logic to me - because I have a list of should too!.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling I acknowledge you are making logical arguments here, but equating the existence of inequalities we accept does not infer that we should exaserbate them create new ones. Moving from pure logic to pragamtism, the education of all childen is one that benefits the financial well being of any country and ehances both individual ability for economic activity and personal responsibility. The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step.
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX You don't make the same argument for equality in education at the college level. do you? In the US, Harvard and Yale accept only the very best students..There is a profound "polarizaton" between this "Ivy League" and the community colleges. Can't I invoke one of your "shoulds" to force a depolarization of higher education.If you say yes, aren't you arguing against that pragmatic position you just made: I mean you're then arguing that the Ivy League "should" lower their standards?
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling Invoking me to say yes to something I never mentioned in the first place is a curious way of staging a 'strawman' to try and advance your point of view. In fact I have argued for neither the end nor a contination of any existing 'inequalities' I also did not say that standards should be lowered Selection process for hubs of accademic excellence is right and correct but is non sequitur to my opinion that public schools for children should be funded by all taxpayers.
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX I thought you cited "prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage.[sic]" You called this "polarization" and then you made an appeal to pragmatism - You said "The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step." If exacerbating polarization is bad then why do you not agree that it should be reduced? If polarization is a practical detriment at lower grades - then surely the same detriment accrues at the higher levels - no strawman at all.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling When you ask whether I would create a handicaps, I think you are misinterpeting my criticism of polarity as a desire to eliminate it for its OWN sake (I can think of Marxists who seek more equality by bringing everyone down). There is a profound difference between this and wanting to improve the chance of one group or ensure their resources are not worsended - which would be a consequence of a few having the option to divert tax contributions away from public schools
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX We agree on the malignancy of a Marxist element seeking equality of result by bringing everyone down. (Von Mises refers to this as the Fourier complex.) But what are you saying after that?
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling I'm going to put universities to the side only because their functions are more complex than the just provision of education which, interesting as they may be, would detract from the discussion.
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX I object to this notion that you reserve to yourself a privilege deciding what detracts from the discussion. To repeat! You cited "prviate/public schools where the former have a clear advantage.[sic]" You said "The diversion of tax money to create greater division would be a backward step." If exacerbating polarization is bad then why do you not agree that it should be reduced? And if polarization is good in the university setting (?) why not at the lower level? Please answer.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarling I'm not excluding it to excercise a privaledge. If we start talking about why the reasons why I think diffrerent rules apply to the universities we will end up going off on a tangent about things that are not relevant to schools. A short answer and by no means covering everything is that the purpose of universityes iis not to provide an education but to advance and preserve knowledge. They could theoretically choose not to teach if they wanted!
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX Fine. I don't think you wish to address the fundamental nexus of your idea which is that polarization is bad and should not be exacerbated (your words or something to that effect.) The polarization between Harvard and Massachusetts Community College is as profound as any you will find. Should it be reduced? You don't want to answer.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling "Fine. I don't think you wish to address the fundamental nexus of your idea which is that polarization is bad " Universities pick accademically talented students when they have already completed school and (I repeat) their duties and purpose are not the same as for schools in the first place so they are diffeernt The nexus of my argument was not polarization in school education shold not be worsened on the basis of parental wealth.
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX Furthermore parents who use private education are not using a benefit they are entitled to. Let's say it cost the state $8000 to educate a child. Private school children relieve the state of that liability. And they are receiving a superior education. So providing tax relief to families of private school children, makes more money available per pupil in the public schools and give incentive for more families to make use of superior private schools - Strawman? I don't think so.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling I am slightly perplexed as to wwhy you have put the strawman comment at the end as if the preceding statement denounces it. What you say here and what I placed as a strawman tactic are two separate things (how ironic a strawman against the strawman LOL) . If what you are saying is that personal expenditure on education can be offest againt income a capped amoiunt may be acceptable (it's not the same as removing the whole amount from the tax bill as I thought you meant)
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX No you understood correctly. I think the entire amount of the cost of each child should be ceded to the parent. I think that public schools as bureaucratic agencies of the government should be abolished. The notion that tax money should be used to fund education has merit - but the best way to do that is to provide the funding individually in the form of vouchers to families who then shop for and determine the best schools in a competitive market.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
If you refund the amount of cost per student, how does this increase the money available to public schools as menationed in your earlier observation?
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX It does not increase the amount of money available. However, it increases the amount per pupil. Money that would have been spent on children that are removed from the public system becomes available to spend on those remaining in the public schools. I propose instead, to simply provide the funding in the form of vouchers to families and require all schools, public and private to compete for students. This is very controversial in the States because it threatens teacher union interests.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling You said "It does not increase the amount of money available. However, it increases the amount per pupil. Money that would have been spent on children that are removed from the public system becomes available to spend on those remaining in.. public schools." IF the REFUNDED cost of each child includes all fixed costs then the SAME amount of money per pupil is left in the system. IF there are less puplis in it the propotion of the fixed must increase - economies of scale
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX In truth - I was really thinking that the pragmatic notion you attempted to advance was in fact a strawman.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling You may not agree with what I said or even be inpressed with the argument, but I don't know if you have understood what a strawman is. A strawman is specifically a misrepresentation of another's position which is used to as the basis of argument rather than the actual position expoused by the intended target. This why I said invoking me to say something I had not already said could be seen as an attempt to create s strawman.
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@DRDFOX And if I may? I would like to just make another point about government funding of schools. The notion that education is provided by government is inexorably connected with control of the curriculum. I'd like to suggest that a free society is at risk when any government controls education. Certain ideas are of service to government which are not in harmony with the exercise of freedom. Free people control their children's education. It means that we must also tolerate aberration.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@RStarvling A neocon paranoid view of 'any' government control? But seriously. Accademia can still have strong independent controls separate to Gov. and EVEN if you are right consider that before state ran education there wasn't universal education What you will create here is a system that runs like business with good schools and bad schools. Some children become the beneficiaries of the system. Others will be the victims. IMHO this isn't moral AND is bad for the future economy
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRDFOX I think a strawman is a dummy argument that mis-characterizes a position. It is something you flail and is easy to beat but does not characterize the true position of your opponent. That's kind of how I felt when you were characterizing polarization and making, what I think are unsupported claims about why it is bad.
RStarvling 2 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
Addendum:
In 1850, the literacy rate was 66% (compared to 99% today).
This low literacy rate was due to freed slaves being taken into consideration.
Before that, the (white) literacy rate was 85.5%.
No matter how you slant it, socialized education has improved literacy regardless of where we register versus other countries.
qabala 1 month ago
@qabala Actually, I know a fair amount of adults who are illiterate or near illiterate. I moved a lot as a kid, and in some of the schools I attended, general literacy was terrible. I was lucky enough to have attended a private kindergarten and to have parents who encouraged reading from a young age. The problem with public education isn't that it drags everyone down, it's that it doesn't solve the quality disparities tied to a locality's constituent wealth, and it becomes inefficient to boot.
angerturnedsideways 1 month ago
@angerturnedsideways
You'll get no argument from me about that, however, I still stand by the statement that an educated populace is better for the economy than an illiterate one.
qabala 1 month ago
@angerturnedsideways
It depends on how you define "literacy." Idiots like quabala who can't write in proper sentences and use possessive pronounds like "a dog licks it's balls" are case in point.
Public education is pure totalitarian dictatorship, rationalized as "the greater good" by little tin gods like this asshole: ; as William Pitt wrote, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
What if that stomach ache is actually your new case of cancer that turns out to be terminal and your going to die because you want less regulations!
MrByronodmon 1 month ago
@MrByronodmon
Yeah well funds are limited, so a balance must be struck between due caution and excess cost.
Government can't increase these funds, it can only WASTE them; so you'll get WORSE care with more government.
A doctor is an expert not only in performing tests, but making the call on whether they're NECESSARY. If a doctor orders unnecessary tests then he can be sued for padding the bill, just like for malpractice if he doesn't order necessary ones.
That's just the breaks!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@MrByronodmon Then now we know. The testing phase for a new drug could and should be the first people willing to take it to try to cure themselves of terrible diseases.
shagoosty 1 month ago
This is stupid you can have a privatized company make drugs with more side effects to there medicine than actually being able to maek you feel better
ruffhouse00x 1 month ago
@ruffhouse00x
Great, so you ONLY want drugs with NO side-effects?
Even PLACEBO'S don't do that, you fucking moron!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Not when the side effects do more then the actual medicine does. Its funny you claim to not want the Government invovled in your healthcare insurance but yet you would want a Doctor who know nothing about dealing with insurance money only in dealing with medicine and you call me moron. Whats next you want a plumber to teach you brain surgery
ruffhouse00x 1 month ago
@ruffhouse00x
Yes but if that were the case then people just wouldn't take it.
A doctor who opens his own practice will have to learn about insurances, or hire a secretary who does--so what?
I'm a lawyer, my job is to keep insurance-companies honest.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Also the reason why cures aren't being put into production isn't because of FDA intervention, it's the oh so unfortunate truth that cures... aren't... exploitable. Once you give a patient a cure, they no longer have an ailment, which means they will not continue to buy your medicine. I agree with a lot of the messages in your videos, however I would advise you to reassess your position on big pharmaceutical companies, as they're the ones who suppress (not inhibit) medical progress.
CaptianComment 1 month ago
@StevenCrowder I would just like you to know that your Russian comment was extremely offensive. They aren't bears on tricycles, they're bears on unicycles. Why you ask? How many sickles are there in the Russian national symbol? Answer: one. One (single) = uni. Uni-sickle.... Unicycle.
CaptianComment 1 month ago
I am from sweden and here we allso wait when we get to the hospital. The wait is due to how serius the injuries etc is. Its a good system. Always open, 24 hours. If its serius they aaaalwaays takes care of you issue directly.. but if you go there with a cold.. like many people do then the que gets bigger. so its more wrong with the people then with the system. If alla people where normal without haaving the need to harasing the hospitals the system should work more then better.
Take care guys
HerrDry 1 month ago
@HerrDry
Yeah that's what I want, sitting there all day in a waiting-room around people with colds and other contagious diseases.... there's a SLIGHT problem with that if you get sicker in the hospital than out. Better to just call and make an appointment with a doctor you can see when you get there.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman no, that's exactly what stupid conservatives do not want because they don't want to pay for others, because it doesn't reward them. But they don't realise that this might save their life or their children life if they can't afford it someday.
"Blindly trusting the government" This is the problem with many US citizens, they still think that the governement is the enemy and that they must keep their guns to be ready to do another revolution.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
DAMN RIGHT-- of course you'd rather be like in Germany, China, Russia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia or the other places where 200 million were murdered because they HAD no guns.
Conservatives just don't want to pay for others to walk around drunk and stoned all day.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman I don't think US citizens will get murdered as heavy as it was in low developped countries like Rwanda and such. Those countries can't even afford a good sytem/police. You should take Germany and Russia out of this though, that doesn't make any sense.
Can you show me statistics about the 'fraction' of people who cannot afford insurances? You seem to forget people that lives in really bad conditions in ghettos and such that can't afford insurances.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
What's your education-level? You don't seem very familiar with basic things.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Just finished highschool. Please enlight me in wich are those "basic things" you write about
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
Sorry, too many to name. Basic math (fractions), history (genocide) and social policy (the number of people in ghettos) are utterly over your head.
To wit: >"Can you show me statistics about the 'fraction' of people who cannot afford insurances? You seem to forget people that lives in really bad conditions in ghettos and such that can't afford insurances."
Yes, these are a SMALL FRACTION of the total population.
I can't communicate through that level of density.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman sorry, it's true about the genocide in Germany, I forgot things like the Crystal night and other jews genocide were jews were not really able to defend themselves, even if with guns they would have been overruned by the germans
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
You're a fail. First you don't even know about the fucking Holocaust, and now you're ignorant of of the uprising in the Polish Ghetto in 1943 when 9 Jews held off 1000 men of the SS for over a month with 9 guns. In the end, the Nazis could not face the threat of snipers and alley way attacks.
Now if 9 Jews could hold off 1000 Nazis for 9 months, then 300 million armed American citizens could hold off the world forever.
And Germany was only a SMALL FRACTION of mass-murder.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Woah, you think I don't know about the holocaust? But I didn't know that they held so many germans with 9 guns. And it's not because the laws on guns were not stricts that jews, people from Rwanda, etc, got killed. It's because they didn't have GUNS AT ALL. Why? Because they prefer buying food for their kids over guns. They could have bought guns if they wanted too, I don't think there was strict gun laws back in 1940
bengacris 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman I just love your logic: "The problem is that liberals derive a rule from an exception, and conservatives deny exceptions to the rule." I'm guessing you're a conservative, so you deny exceptions to the rule - yet you think civillians owning weapons is more than okay because there was 1 case during WWII where jews successfully defended themselves with guns. Talk about coherence!
And don't worry, America's wars are fought abroad, it's never on your soil for some weird reason.
Newn0h 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Newn0h
"I just love your logic:"
And I hate yours.
Speaking of which:
"I'm guessing you're a conservative"
Guess again.
"ou think civillians owning weapons is more than okay because there was 1 case during WWII where jews successfully defended themselves with guns. "
NO, butthurt retard, that was a RESPONSE to the notion that government would "overrun" armed citizens. You're a fucking idiot.
"America's wars are fought abroad"
Yes because America STARTED them ALL-- it's an EMPIRE!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman I would also add basic English to that list.
fluteygurl0 1 month ago
@fluteygurl0
I got your flute right here girl LOL
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman What? That has nothing to do with what I said/
fluteygurl0 1 month ago
Check out Europe... how the hell does it work there? I don`t even see a medical bill, ever...
But hey, its probably easier making fun of liberal clichees than actually seeing that the system works all over Europe.
blammblamm 1 month ago
@blammblamm
That's just it-- you DON'T see the bill; so it's a HIDDEN COST.
I personally wanna SEE what I'M paying for!
The system "works" only in the sense that no one complains, and no one complains because it's useless-- and you can always go to the US as the world's emergency-room!
AND there's the propaganda of the UN only rating health-care on the basis of what the countries REPORT, vs. doing ACTUAL RESEARCH into what's actually there!
But if you hate the truth, DON'T ASK!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman You SEE the bill! It's your taxes! It's not free like some people think, it's paid by taxes from everybody. This way everybody can acess it, of course you will wait a bit more than in USA, but at least you can have it.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
You can't exactly cost-compare, or refuse to pay taxes if you don't like the service.
You're out the money, simple as that.
Also you end up paying for other people who place themselves at a higher risk-level, and the only alternative is a prison-state where they control your every move.
CHOICE is FREEDOM--- freedom of CHOICE!
And NO ONE is denied care in the US; junkies simply aren't given the free high that they come looking for, so they CLAIM they're "being denied!"
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@blammblamm
Crowder is a walking douchebag, I'll give you that; even conservatives like Debbie Schlussel say -- VERBATIM-- that he's full of shit and pulls facts out of his ass, and that he gives honest conservatives a bad name with his lies and crap-research statistics.
However he's correct that Canada's health-care is more red tape than bandages.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
If you can't afford TO WAIT you can still pay to private. Also, if you have urgent problems, of course you will past first, if your foot is hurting you're going to wait. And yes of course maybe people died while waiting, but WAY MORE died in USA because they couldn't afford it. Just look, Canada is doing way better than USA right now.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris "If you can't afford TO WAIT you can still pay to private."
And if you can't afford to pay private, because the government took all your money to pay public?
YOU'RE FUCKED WITHOUT A WHORE!
See this is what libs just don't get: the "limited" part of LIMITED RESOURCES!
To libotards, government is a horn of plenty that never runs dry; and so when the clowns run the circus, they wonder where it all went, and start finger-pointing-- as people DIE!!!
Yeah, sign me up for THAT!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman It's something that you don't understand. If you don't want to wait, go to private, if you can't afford private go back to public. It's the best of both worlds. ONE thing that people fighting against socialised healthcare don't understand is that people with a heart attack won't wait in a line. If your foot hurt a bit, of course you will wait, because some people with way more dangerous problems need to pass first.
bengacris 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Yes there is people dieing while waiting, or having bad injuries. But in USA you have way more people dieing in the streets because they just CAN'T AFFORD healthcare at all. What is better, waiting in a line for 5 hours to get your treatement or not having your treatement AT ALL?
And again, if you don't want to wait 5 hours because your foot hurts a little, just go to private.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
You're looking at the whole problem wrong.
It's stupid to put everyone on public assistance simply because of a small fraction who can't afford it; that's just retarded.
Better to simply provide it for those few, and impose a tax on those who refuse to obtain their own insurance who can afford it.
Such a tax is well-within the authority of the federal government, to indemnify itself for costs due to those who choose to remain uninsured.
But that makes too much sense.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
(cont'd)
Since health-care is simply a matter of risk-management, then it's essential under the General Welfare clause to impose such a tax to insure against the inevitable. Likewise, those who can afford their own insurance, are free to do so and avoid the added tax.
However when anyone isn't insured, that imposes an absolute cost on everyone else-- which the government has a duty to indemnify itself against, by exacting it via a tax.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman well this is a good solution. I think it would be more appropraite for the US, at least it would be better than the current abscence of it.
bengacris 1 month ago
@bengacris
Well putting everyone on welfare just to help the poor, is simply stupid, and blindly trusting the government with your health more than you trust yourself and your doctor, is even stupider.
But that's EXACTLY what idiots like Bill Maher want.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@bengacris
The problem is that liberals derive a rule from an exception, and conservatives deny exceptions to the rule.
In reality, only a FRACTION cannot afford insurance, while most simply do without it and take chances with other people's nickel-- since when you have 300 million people, you don't have RISKS of needing health-care-- you have RATES of it.
Like I said, it's a matter of risk-MANAGEMENT, and if they won't manage their own then the state MUST out of general welfare.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SovereignStatesman "In reality, only a FRACTION cannot afford insurance, while most simply do without it and take chances with other people's nickel--" The problem is that even the insured can get chronic conditions that insurance is all too often inadequate to cover and the cost of prescriptions and exlcuded care is what ruins these people who HAVE had the sense to take out the insurance.
DRDFOX 3 weeks ago
The medical care he's refering to the free one thats socailized.
If you can afford it you can pay for private care.
the underprivileged lower class could still have health care even if they can't afford it. don't be ignorant...
Giraffes90 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you look at "StevenCrowder" and "JacobSpinney" videos you can tell they were made by the same video company.
And seeing as how they're both Jews I'm guessing some zionist neo-con think tank paid for them.
redskull39 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are an ignorant idiot
Macebeard 2 months ago
...the guy who invented the polio vaccine did not patent it so that it can be made freely available for the entire humanity, his name was Jonas Salk. I am sure some people today can follow his example...You speak without any fundamental understanding of the issues you wish to wish to advocate. Try being more humble like Mr. Salk...
rejijinaraj 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StevenCrowder And who says conservatives have no sense of humor and aren't funny ? LOL look at the high, loud, fast talking Jew over emoting like he has Tourettes , he's a laugh riot. LOL
Better to have basic medical care than no medical care which is what a large percentage of Americans have and I bet you you've never lived in Canada there Duddy Kravitz eh ?
DeathToTeaBaggers 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeathToTeaBaggers 2 months ago
Only in America would a turd like you thrive.
pantinello 2 months ago
I saw your other video - the truth about Health care in Canada...you went to one place, in one city. Don't be hate'n just because you don't have what EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD has.
crypticrevival 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crypticrevival You do realize that every other industrialized nation in the word that has socialized healthcare has lost drug innovation and countless of tax payer dollars? Not only that, but they have less young people aspiring to be doctors and healthcare practitioners. Thus, you get less qualified people to do a job that should have very high standards.
scoopolard 2 months ago
Well at least we don't have a giganormous national debt and we're not on verge of having our houses seized by banks, face it the US is crumbling, and Canada still remains strong (you could say, as always)
lubi125 2 months ago
@lubi125 yup, after the economic crisis we already recovered 5/6 of our lost jobs, Canada is still standing while USA economy is crumbling. Canada is ruled by statistics and working solutions. USA is ruled by emotions wich is the worst thing to rule a country.
bengacris 2 months ago
@bengacris someone with good senses! Let us enjoy our decent quality healthcare, while americans barely have ANY FORM OF IT!
lubi125 2 months ago
@bengacris Always remember, Skynet from the Matrix movies was also constructed with the aim of being ruled by statistics and reason to come to working solutions:)
semperFi4ever100 2 months ago
@semperFi4ever100 Yes, but it's a movie. Remember that. Also Skynet is from Terminator not the Matrix :P
bengacris 2 months ago
@bengacris That's true, got that mixed up. Both great movies
semperFi4ever100 2 months ago
Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. All having US involvement. Bush era deficit: 7 trillion Obama era deficit: 14 trillion and CLIMBING
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
@halolover2dmax You didn't say U.S. involvement, you said he 'started' 4 more wars. You listed only 3. Being involved is NOT the same as starting. And what war in Saudi Arabia?? Not to mention, the others were considered more of an armed conflict than a war. And not costing the Trillion of Iraq.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93
I admit I screwed up on the started and 4. Involved in and 3. Armed conflict or not, U.S, resources where dedicated to them, costing us money AND potential US troops. BTW, the one who screwed us up was FDR, not Regan...
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
though i must admit..yea it can be cold...in quebec...man i never wanna visit Quebec
tylanol7 2 months ago
@tylanol7 you know, we have warm summers in Québec, we reach 30 celsius in summer, and -40 in the winter, we have a balanced climate
bengacris 2 months ago
tchnically thatd only be in quebec lol..ok ok maybe other places to but still ontario is all good for it muahahahahaha...all ur arguments r invalid
tylanol7 2 months ago
LOL Love this video :) Thanks for some humour and honesty. As a fellow Canadian, I have horrid stories of our "amazing FREE" healthcare:)
55Freya 2 months ago
He doesn't have a job, nobody would hire him.
So he made up an ocupation, spewing usless shit on youtube so he can feel relevant.
(don't tell him nobody cares)
Social commenatry actually requires some intelligence.
noftchks1 2 months ago
Obama is trying to ban inalers. I have asthma, so he is effectively trying to kill me...
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
@halolover2dmax Actually it was because of the Montreal protocol signed by Ronald Reagan, with the bill brought in and finalized by the Bush adminstration in Nov./ 2008 that inhalers with CFC's would be banned by Dec. 31st/2011. Obama had NOTHING to do with it.
littlegreenfootballsDOTcom/article/39204_Debunking_the_Right-Wing_Obama-CFC-Inhaler_Ban_Nontroversy
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93
I'm still effectively trying to be killed...
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
@halolover2dmax If you think so, but don't blame Obama.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93
You're right, I have much better things to blame him for!
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
@halolover2dmax True, 'everything' is Obama's fault. Your country needs another Bush. That will straighten things up again.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93 I never said that. Obama has nearly doubled the deficit and Started 4 more wars, He also acts without congress and believes that the constitution is an outdated peace of paper. Like I said, there are PLENTY of other things to blame him for. What we really need is another Washington or Reagan.
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
@halolover2dmax 4 more wars?? Please enlighten me on this one.
Reagan was the one that signed the CFC bill, that led to the banning of your puffer. He also doubled your DEBT at the time, let alone deficit. Obama inherited a mess from Bush.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MadHabber93
Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. All having US involvement. Bush era deficit: 7 trillion Obama era deficit: 14 trillion and CLIMBING
halolover2dmax 2 months ago
No, no, no. This is how a blood test would go (and I've had blood tests in Canada plenty of times.) You make an appointment with your doctor. In 1-2 weeks you get an appointment. You wait in the waiting room for 15min. You go into doctor's office and they say you need a blood test. They give you a piece of paper to get the blood test. You go to the blood test place and wait about 15-20 min to get a blood test.
coldtemperature 3 months ago
@coldtemperature No, at least not most places:)
55Freya 2 months ago
@55Freya Your right, I usually see my doc the same day or next day. I've never waited longer than 20 min. for a blood test. Your worse than a gullible American.
Crowder is full of shit.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93 How am I worse than a gullible american? I LIVE in Canada, I have had TERRIBLE healthcare situations, one almost cost my son his LIFE. Bc YOU live in some fab place with great service don't think the rest of the country gets it. Talk about gullible. Your a twit.
55Freya 2 months ago
@55Freya Yet I've seen countless B.C. residents post the exact opposite of your experience, and when looking at polls of your province, well over 80% are also fully satisfied with the care they have received. Along with the rest of the country. You're entitled to have a bad experience, but painting with a broad brush that its the norm is horse shit.
You say above 'not in most places' when it comes to blood tests. Sorry to burst your bubble, its the norm.
And our system saves lives everyday!
MadHabber93 2 months ago
@MadHabber93 Not in BC AB or MB, where I live now. You live in a fantasy world. Our healthcare is ok if you don't have anything serious and hardly get sick, or if you have an emergency like a heart attack...bc then your moved to the top of the list. Everyone else gets screwed and we pay for it.
55Freya 2 months ago
@55Freya Our healthcare, in my opinion and the majority, excells when its serioius. Again, in those provinces listed, satisfaction of our system is high. There is no fantasy world on my part. Is it perfect, no, but the alternative of a for profit, insurance run system that leaves Millions without ANY care at all is NOT the answer.
MadHabber93 2 months ago
Don’t forget that even if you get FDA approval if one tenth of one percent of people using your drug gets that tummy ach you’ll have Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe advertizing on afternoon tv that they will get the maximum compensation you are entitled to.
MockatLordmock 3 months ago
I really am not going to get into this debate. But please people stop saying it's free. Nothing is free. It's all payed for by taxes and in Canada I know you have to pay for extras like phones and t.v's. I don't defended either system because american healthcare clearly sucks. But socialized healthcare isn't the answer.
skeptictom818 3 months ago
@skeptictom818 We have socialized insurance in Canada, not healthcare. Doctors and hospitals are all privately run and operated.
And yes, we pay extra for a phone or t.v. in the room. That pales in comparison to thousands of dollars for the room and hospital costs.
Beartit69 3 months ago
You're a dumbass
Spencerthefuture2022 3 months ago
@Spencerthefuture2022 - agreed!
dennysss13 3 months ago