The problem with Sarah Palin jokes, is that she's not that relevant. She ran for an office that's really an honorary title (V.P.), and lost. Making fun of her, just because everyone else is doing it, would be like kicking the kid on the playground with glasses. It may get a laugh, but it's still mean, and he didn't really do anything to bring it on himself. Using Palin as a punching bag is really no more sophisticated than dissing on Paris Hilton.
But she deserves it. The difference between her and that kid on the playground is that she was way WAY out of her league running for a political position. I mean, for chrissakes, she wanted to go to war with russia >.>
She's about as politically competent as Ann coulter, and not much smarter either. And now she's got fuckin TV shows about her being little miss alaska and whatnot.
Making fun of Palin is insurance in case she gets any more bright ideas >.>
@peepeevagi If she ever runs for office again, I would welcome any (helpful) criticisms against her. (Explaining WHY she's not qualified, as opposed to just mocking her, and assuming that her lack of qualifications should be self-evident.) But for right now, she's just the host of some silly show that indicates to me that she's not taking herself very seriously. And I can respect that.
Why isn't she qualified? I guess she's qualified for it but she doesn't have the... 'sense' i guess you could say. Again, she said War with russia may be necessary when she had ran. Yeah, nice job causing world war three.
I dont know, she's Big headed and rash with her thinking. Being ice cold may be the norm in Alaska, but elsewhere that's just asking for trouble. And for that i mock that fuckin bitch xD
It's hard to pick on her because she was selected. She answered a call to duty from her party and said yes. You have to admire that a little bit even if you disagree with what she stands for. She let herself in for a world of shit for the prospect of playing second fiddle to McCain.
Palin is a joke. Not being able to answer when she was asked what she reads, writing crib notes on her hand, abstinance only. She asked for all she gets and then some.
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
@penn919 and who she was running against wasn't? Lets face face it... this was a vote of the lesser of two morons (well 3 2/3 moron, Dick isn't as much of a moron, he just makes up for it with his senility ...) and the moron won... go figure...
Penn, rich, Right Wing Conservatives have been beating on Hillary for years. So what's up? Palin makes herself a target, Hillary does as well to an extent, but not like Palin, who seems to love her own ignorance.
@olivemike81 Even if you compare the two of them , Hillary still has the bigger /louder mouth. And i have yet to hear Hillary say anything that made me sit back and think... wow, Shes really is smarter than Palin.
Why on earth couldn't Powell have run?!? I would have voted for him.... twice...
@TopHatGuy682 That may be true. But my point is still the same. His reason for making fun of Hillary but not Palin is bullshit. And I agree with you on Powell. I probably would have voted for him too. Powell seems to have the best of both worlds. He's fiscally conservative and at the same time he's not an uptight, ignorant douchebag like most of the Republican Party.
@rjworks13 More like a double standard streak. The Right Wingers have been beating on Hillary for years. How come he has no problem making fun of her?
I really dig that you have a hard time choosing left/right....the whole Left vs. Right paradigm is so phony and ridiculous...THEY'RE THE SAME THING! and it only divides us. liberals and republicans is just as bad as racism in my eyes.
Why cant we just make ppl pay insurance to the people who they are getting services from. Medical insurance should be manage from the hospitals. Some hospitals are acually doing this. Instead of giving money to insurance you pay a weekly rate to the doctor and you get unlimited visits antibiotics and such. One person claimed to cut her insurance costs in half. Cut out the middle man and the price immediately goes down. Never been tried on a large scale though.
@fieldman07 that's not a large scale thing...however...it could be a grass roots movement and end up large scale...every hospital would be different....how would you handle things when you traveled or went on vacation? Perhaps part of the travel cost? Interesting idea. I like it!
Cant seem to make jokes about it? Its because sarah palin is retarded... I wouldnt make jokes about her uterus bringing into the world a bunch of special olympics hopefuls... it would be in poor taste... so why comment about the nature of the uterus? we need to elect smarty people into politics... as a general rule not as though it would really change anything... if people cared about society they would care about liberty... not about their political party not like a football team
He actually does agree with Palin on many issues. 2nd amendment rights, capitalism, free markets, energy.. a lot of things that really matter.
Sure he may disagree with her religious beliefs, or capital punishment, or whatever, but the bigger picture stuff, penn is far more conservative than he would probably like to admit.
He's not conservative and he's not liberal. He's libertarian. That pretty much means he thinks that as long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want. Gun rights, rights to marriage, and pretty much all the none crazy stuff from both sides of the spectrum.
Ok, I'll give you that, he is a libertarian. But I have also found that Libertarians have a lot more in common with conservatives than with liberals.
In any event, my point was that he actually DOES agree with Palin more often than not. I just think he is getting his news about her from biased sources. He even makes reference to her "I can see Russia from my house" comment, which she NEVER actually said. That was Tina Fey on SNL. I think if he did a little digging, he would like her more.
I don't think you get libertarians. On social issues, they are as far from conservatives as can be, just like they disagree with liberals on fiscal issues.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that libertarians even agree with the either parties 50% of the time. When it comes to fiscal issues, most republicans don't go far enough to the right for them.
Also, the idea that Sarah Palin is unintelligent and power hungry is not necessarily a liberal idea.
Well yeah, the current republican party is not far enough to the right. That is why they lost the last few elections and that is why I didn't say republicans in my comment, I said conservatives.
And yes, there are differences, but if you were to sit down and go issue to issue in comparison, libertarians are pretty far to the right.
I didn't say going farther to the right would help Republicans win elections. They are way too far to the right in my opinion, where as the Democrats are closer to the middle, which is a good thing to me. Of course the Democrats have other problems.
The interesting thing about libertarians is that although they are extremists, being really far to the right on fiscal and left on social kind of evens them, in a wierd sort of way.
But they are as close to republicans as they are to democrats.
Democrats close to the middle? What country are you living in? The democrats are so far left they are practically europeans. Come on, universal healthcare, cap and trade, closing guantanamo bay, taking over private enterprises, bail outs, and attempting to regulate every portion of our lives.
Instead of listening to the democrats tell you what they are doing, take a look at what they are ACTUALLY doing. It is two very different things.
McCain lost the election because he was campaigning to the center. He alienated his conservative base. Obama didn't say anything during his campaign except "hope and change" which confused some people and brainwashed many others. Now that his (and the democrats) true extreme fringe left attitude is on display, his approval ratings are falling fast.
And libertarians are not left on social issues. They aren't as far right as extreme conservatives, but definitely NOT left.
The more companies merge, the less consumer choice their is, the more capitalism fails. This also creates situations where companies can be "too big to fail." They *really* had no choice but to bail out those companies, and what libertarians don't seem to understand is that this is ultimately a failure of the uninhibited free market.
Anyway, none of those things you mentioned place the democrats on the "extreme left."
Now, libertarians ARE DEFINITELY left on social issues. They are for: legalization of pot, prostitution, gambling. They are against: gov't benefits for marriage, any government money for anythingt religious... well, pretty much any gov't money for anything, if it's not one of the big three: courts / police / military.
Personally I think it needs to be updated to a big 6, with healthcare schools and roads included. But that's just me.
Healthcare is not something the government should be doing. They can't. There just is not enough money and besides that, the government can't run anything efficiently. Medicare, the school system, the post office, you name it, the government is running it at huge deficits and poor performance.
Closing guantanamo is a left right issue, because only the left seems to think it is a good idea.
Please explain to me how the government taking control of GM, banks, and trying to take over 1/6 of the countries economy (healthcare) is not socialism?
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. The USA is not the richest, most powerful country, with the highest standards of living for nothing. It has worked for over 200 years and All the things the current administration wants to do has a long history of failure.
Libertarians, like democrates and republicans, come in various degrees. Yes, the most extreme libertarians want legal drugs and hookers, etc. But the majority of libertarians recognize the difference between liberty and anarchy.
And just why should the government run our schools? They already are and are failing miserably at it. The government spends almost $20,000 per student per year on education. Tell me you couldn't educate your own kids better for much cheaper.
By the way, I agree with you that "there is nothing wrong with capitalism," in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with socialism. They're both flawed, but I never said anything was morally wrong with either of them. I think the the best system is a mix between the two.
I don't think you know many libertarians. Traditional libertarians want government as small as possible. Most libertarians want drugs/prostitution legalized. Don't take my word for it, ask around.
I am not even talking about moraly right or wrong. I am talking about what works to benefit the most people, and what does not. Socialism fails every time it is tried. It is completely unsustainable. Capitalism, on the other hand, creates wealth, creates freedom, and creates opportunity. In capitalism if you don't like making $20,000 a year, you can get off your ass and find a way to make more. With socialism, if you make more, they take it from you. Where is the incentive?
Now, as for the standard line "it creates wealth, freedom, opportunity, blah blah," you're not telling me anything revolutionary here. That's all absolutely correct. But it's also just one side of the story. Although it creates wealth, it also creates poverty because that wealth tends to be concentrated to a few individuals. With freedom comes risk. It's not all good. There are downsides to capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't create poverty. Lazy people create poverty. Capitalism requires personal responsibility, which 95% of people have. The other 5% are usually taken care of anyway by private charities. Government hand outs like welfare and foodstamps just breed more laziness. People on these programs don't want to work for a living and why should they when they get everything for free?
Socialism is the same way. Everything is provided by the government. Who is going to work?
And that brings us to why socialism will always fail. To get the people working requires a dictator with absolute power over their lives. Nobody wants to live that way. So they would fight back, only socialists don't allow citizens to own guns.
And eventually, the lack of tax revenue from the lazy, oppressed masses, causes the country to go bankrupt. Without the money the government can no provide for its people. Everything falls apart.
A college professor once tried an experiment when his class decided socialism was a good idea. He told them that his entire class would get a C and pass the course. But to do this, there had to be enough points to spread around. So any students making an A had to offset the students getting F's. And students making B's had to offset the ones getting D's. The students all agreed. The class worked this way until the students making A's and B's got tired of working hard to only get a C.
At the same time, the students making C's and D's got lazy as well, figuring the smarter kids would make up their slack anyway.
After just one month the class only had enough points to grade everybody a D-. The students decided then to quit the experiment and return to normal grading.
That is EXACTLY how socialism, and Obamas "redistribution of wealth" works in the REAL world.
Now granted, socialism doesn't have a very good track record. I'm not convinced that a socialist country couldn't succeed. But that's purely academic; I'm generally pretty happy with capitalism, I just think it needs a little socialism mixed in to keep things balanced. Things like a progressive tax scale, welfare, UHC, public school system, to keep the gap of wealthy and poor from getting too great. I think that pure capitalism without any of these things is ultimately as flawed as socialism
Do you have a job? If you do, is the big boss, the guy you work for, a rich guy or a poor guy? The company I work for has 400 employees and the owner is a rich guy, makes about $1.5 million a year.
Wealth trickles down. Rich people pay the poor people. If the rich people are taxed harder and have less money, they don't take the hit themselves. They lay you off, or reduce your pay, or raise the price of the product they manufacture so your expenses are higher.
And why should my boss be forced to move out of his huge house, or reduce his quality of life at all, in order to keep me on at his company after the government levies a $30,000 tax on him for really no reason?
Money is not a zero sum game. There is always more money to go around. Just because bill gates is rich does not mean there has to be 100 poor people. If the government taxes the rich, does that make you any richer?
Now as for your sales pitch on Capitalism, I agree with most of your points. However, like any sales pitch, you're ignoring all the inherent flaws in capitalism.
For example, you didn't address this: in a capitalistic society, wealth tends to concentrate towards a few individuals. There is not a direct correlation between working hard and success, luck is also a big factor. So if someone fails, it is not always or solely due to laziness. Also, not everyone has the same advantages.
I didn't address it ecause it is a flawed question. I disagree with the premise entirely. How does capitalism concentrate towardsa few individuals? It simply does not. It concentrates towards the people who are willing to work hard and take personal responsibility.
You think the founder of some large company never failed before? They fail all the time, but they work hard and overcome their failure. Yes luck plays a role, but if you let that stop you, then you deserve your crappy job.
And don't give me that "Not everyone has the same advantages" crap. This is America. EVERYONE has the same opportunity. Sure, if your daddy is rich and pays your way to college, then sure, you got a head start. But even if you have that head start that doesn't mean you will succeed. And not having that head start does not mean you will fail either.
Your life is what YOU make of it. Getting side tracked by failure, bad luck, or envy of the rich, is YOUR own fault.
The US is the most prosperous nation on the planet. We have the highest standard of living in the world. We didn't get that way by pure dumb luck.
Anyway, this discussion is getting very large and is taking a lot of time out of my day. I've said my piece. It is up to you to decide if it had merit or if you would rather just blow it off.
traditional libertarians, LIKE traditional conservatives, do want as small a government as possible. Like Ronald Regan said "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
And I happen to know many libertarians, and like I have already said, most of them recognize the difference between liberty and anarchy.
You can be as free as you like, but there are always some things that you just can not have legal for a society to function.
Most countries have hybrid healthcare systems, meaning they have govt and private plans.
First, let me explain to you why you're dead wrong. Government healthcare is cheaper than private. This is because private healthcare is insurance companies, who are basically middlemen who play the role of the govt, in the sense that they take everybody's pooled rescources and then dole it out to those who need it.
The US has a hybrid health system already. 40% of the money spent on healthcare comes from the government. Medicare, medicade, AHCCCS, and various others.
And government healthcare is not cheaper than private. So far the healthcare bill calls for $1.2trillion. And if we look at medicare, which was supposed to cost $40mill and ended up costing $1trill, then we can also expect the new bill to cost significantly more than the project.
And not only will the bill cost way too much, it would lead to rampant rationing, and shortages of doctors, since half the bill is about reducing doctor pay. Who is going to go through 10 years of medical school, racking up student loans, only to graduate and make $40,000 a year?
The rationing has already started. Obama himself said he would rather loop out a 100 year old woman with pain pills, than give her a pace maker that would greatly improve her quality of life.
However, you won't hear me arguing with you about the bill they are passing right now. Certainly, cutting doctor's pay is a terrible idea.
In some countries, there are govt scholarships that let people go to medical school for free. This is something we should be doing here. Nevermind the deficits, this will save us money in the long run.
Government grants and scholarships are NOT free. They come out of yours and my pocket. If somebody is smart enough to be a doctor, they can find a way to do it themselves. I shouldn't have to pay for somebody else to go to school. And just how would that save us money anyway? Right now it doesn't cost you, me, or the country, one dime for a person to go to medical school.
But we should definitely have UHC, we just need to do it right. Most other countries in the world are capable of doing it right, so I'm sure it's at least possible for us to do it right too.
Again, the US's healthcare is rated the #1 most expensive per capita, and #16 in terms of quality.
And remember, insurance companies basically ARE socialized medicine. It's everyone pooling thier money together to share risk. Why pay someone to do the same thing the govt can easily do for free?
There is no doing it right. In Canada the price of the healthcare system is going to be 50% of their tax revenue by 2013. In Canada AND the UK, there is extensive rationing, women getting surgery for breast cancer but never being able to get the followup chemotherapy needed. People pulling their own teeth because they have been waiting literally years, to see a dentist. You can find stories like this every day out of Canada or the UK.
And here is the part you don't know. A private healthcare company does not just take your money and pool it for when it is needed. They use the money in investments and GROW the money. The average person uses nearly double the amount of money in healthcare than they paid in over their lives. Especially in the senior years of their lives. They can do this because the insurance company uses your money to make more money. The government CAN'T do this.
You said govt healthcare is not cheaper than private, but you failed to provide any comparisons illustrating your point. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.
With private healthcare, we are basically paying insurance companies to fill the role govt would fill with UHC. So by definition, private healthcare is more expensive, because there is an unnecessary middleman. This is just a basic economic fact.
That's why the US's current healthcare system is the most expensive, per capita, in the world.
The difference between private healthcare and UHC is that the government is horribly inefficient at doing most anything. The government will spend $250,000 for you to have a $50,000 surgery. What is the extra money for? For the bureaucrats whether or not you actually need the surgery. For the bureaucrats who design the book the first set of bureaucrats use to decide if you need the surgery.. the list goes on.
Right, that's the typical libertarian response, "well the govt is just inefficient at everything." It's kind of like liberals who complain that "corporations are always evil." Both views are sort of right, but sort of exaggerated.
I'm not talking about that specific bill, I'm talking about UHC in general. It just means that govt fills the role of the insurance company. It doesn't necessarily mean that any bureaucrats need to approve your surgeries.
I realize that govt scholarships come out of my pocket, but my opinion is that some things are worth paying for because they save us all money in the long run.
Now, let's talk about Canada's Healthcare System. Libertarians love to pick on Canada, despite the fact that many countries in the world have hybrid healthcare systems. As far as I know, Canada probably has the least amount of private options, and in that sense is the most socialist. This makes them easy to pick on.
You still have not explained how us paying for a person to go to medical school will save us money over them paying for it themselves.
And while YOU may be willing to shell out more money to the government, that doesn't mean the rest of us are. I personally would rather keep MY money to use as I see fit. I don't want, nor need, the government taking my money because they think they know what is best for me. I am not some child with an allowance.
You said that Canadian Healthcare is going to be 50% of thier tax revenue. Where did you get this figure? I looked it up, and apparently in 2008 govt healthcare expenditures were 10.7% of the GDP. This is compared to the US which was 15%. It's also apparently more than Norway, Luxemburg, and Switzerland.
Now for criticism regarding Canada's wait times. Yes, this is a valid criticism, but you've blown it out of proportion somewhat.
The main thing to remember is that in Canada, there are no waiting lists for *ER* care. It's about the same there as it is here. ER care in the US may even have longer wait times just because our ER rooms are overcrowded, because not enough people have insurance and can't afford preventive care. By the way, ER care is always more expensive than preventative, which is another reason why our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.
By the way, a poll in 2009 found that 82% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system to the US. 8% of people in the US prefer thier healthcare system to Canada's.
So let's restate the facts: Canada's healthcare system has 10 times more public approval than the US, and is cheaper than the US.
Do you pay for insurance, KurNorock? You do realize that you are already paying for uninsured people, don't you? The ER room takes everyone, insured or not, and as a result the insured pay more.
You see, like it or not, we do have socialized medicine in this country, it's just socialized medicine facilitated indirectly by the private market. In a civilized society, we don't just let people die in the street.
So if we're going to end up with socialized medicine anyway, why not cut out the middleman insurance companies and do it directly? It really doesn't matter how incompetent govt is, this system WILL be cheaper. There is evidence of this all over the world.
Your poll is wrong. I've seen many polls claiming the exact opposite. Just for fun, take a look at local phone books in northern Minnesota, washington, other northern boarder states. Then ask yourself why there is such a huge number of medical clinics in these areas as opposed to other parts of the country. It is because there are hundreds of thousands of canadians crossing the boarder to get medical care because they CAN'T get it in their own country.
Simply stating something as fact does not make it so. I know canada's healthcare is very expensive, and I know it has sub-par performance compared to the US. I recognize the figures of performance and quality you gave and so I know they are from an organization that is heavily in favor of socialized health care, so how can i trust their statistics?
And yes I do pay for my health insurance. But no I do not pay for others to go to the ER, not with my insurance anyway.
You are making the common liberal mistake of thinking that the insurance companies own the hospitals. It is federal law that ERs take in everybody regardless of medical covereage, and so it is the government (our tax dollars) that pay for those uninsured to go to the ER.
You said I'm making "a common liberal mistake of thinking that the insurance companies own the hospitals"? For real? It seems you haven't done any research into this subject whatsoever. Please do, so that you will see what I am saying is 100% correct. In the meantime, a short explanation:
The govt most certainly does NOT pay for the uninsured. The hospital simply raises costs. The insurance companies who pay these costs, in turn raise rates. The costs are passed on to YOU.
So my poll is wrong? I honestly doubt that. From my own personal anecdotal evidence, most Canadians I know tell me they definetly prefer thier healthcare system to ours. But forget anecdotal evidence, let's focus on the facts.
The average wait time to see a medical specialist: Canada: 4 weeks. US: 3 weeks. ER wait times are a little longer in Canada, but Canadians have better chances of getting medical attention on nights, weekends and holidays.
@Maytag99 There's a lot more reasons to not want government health care. It's a HUGE portion of our economy. I hate to quote some of our leaders but Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex when he left office, now we have Ron Paul warning us about Medical Industrial Complexes. If we hand over this huge chunk of our money to the government how will we ever get it back? I think both sides of this argument need to be more closely looked at by all of us, to critical not to. peace!
Let's agree to disagree, Poonard. Just by the nature of how insurance works, the bigger the pool of people sharing risk, the cheaper it is for everyone. Therefore, logically government healthcare will always be superior to privatized, just for simple economical reasons.
You can't trust the govt, you cant trust corporations. Let's not marry ourselves to socialist or libertarian ideals, but rather choose the systems that work best pragmatically.
@Maytag99 That's assuming the usage of care doesn't change.. When you add people who did not have care into the pool of people who have care and they start receiving care without paying for it, this saves money for noone and benefits only those who were once without it. This is faulty math that the proponents of UHC promote. The problem with this system today is that there is a disconnect between cost and consumption of care. People consume care without regard to cost b/c insurance enables them.
And your claim that there is a huge number of Canadians crossing the border to get medical care in the Northern states? I've looked into this, and there is apparently some truth to it for certain kinds of treatments. Mainly mental health and cancer treatments. However, apparently you're not the first person to make this claim, and it's heavily exaggerated.
Again, just to be clear: insurance companies are the private market's way of imitating socialized medicine. It's a system where everyone pools their money together and shares risk. THIS IS SOCIALISM. The money may be held by a private company, but it doesn't change what it is. If you want REAL privatized healthcare, then cancel your insurance and pay your own costs!
But nobody wants that. The reason we have insurance companies is because the free market spoke, and it wanted socialism.
@Maytag99 Its not socialism its called risk pooling. Insurance companies pool the risk of many clients and make several categories of risk assessment based on average loss of each insuree.. They then take that minimal break even value and tack on a premium to make a profit... Government run care doesn't run a profit... It generally runs at a loss, taxpayer funded, and serves everyone... hence socialized. If private healthcare is socialism then so is auto, homeowner, and life insurance...
@budda10000 Technically it's not socialism, but it's very similar.
The point of govt healthcare is not to run a profit. That's the point of a business. What govt run healthcare DOES do is keep the costs down for everyone, precisely because there is no need to make a profit. It's also more effecient, because of that risk pooling thing you were talking about. The more people under one plan, the more effecient it is, so the ideal way is to have everyone under one plan.
@cassidy99ful Not sure why that is, but correlation is not causation. Pretty much every country with universal healthcare has cheaper healthcare costs per capita, yet similar wait times and healthcare quality. We aren't even close to having universal healthcare here yet, but we should all be working towards it, it just makes the most sense.
We are paying insurance companies to fill the role the govt would in socialized healthcare. This is why our system is the most expensive in the world! It has little to do with "cultural diversity."
You clearly need to do more research on this issue. Please, realize that this country already has socialized medicine, it is just fake socialized medicine that we pay extra for.
It's a choice between this or real socialized medicine. There is no 3rd option!
yes, there IS a 3rd option... opening up the free market to the insurance industry so the consumer can shop for the coverage they want, from whichever company they want
make it a personal responsibility to buy your own, instead of employer provided, and you could carry it from job to job... buy from a company based out of state... etc
While that doesn't sound like a bad idea, I think we'd ultimately be better off with universal healthcare. Besides the fact that there's a lot of evidence that it would be cheaper and of similar quality, there's also the moral idea that everyone is entitled to healthcare as a basic human right.
@Maytag99 the thing is...what they are offering us, is not like what you are describing. It was written by the very insurance companies we all despise along with wall street to wrench even more money out of us. i respect the fact that you have your evidence and I have mine. be glad to talk about it! take care!
@Zaxxon2008 Why stop at a 3rd? Why shouldn't there be a 4th, 5th, or 6th option? By opening the market this would happen! :) I liked the idea i read a few comments up about working with individual hospitals to take out the middle man. Seemed interesting.
@Maytag99 Sure there is, and it's becoming a reality. The same companies we hate paying too are the same companies who've worked with wall street and our government to make this fake socialized health care. it's really sad. There are some very interesting new ideas out there too. No reason to limit ourselves EVER.
This is all false. Do you really know how many people in this country have insurance? Obamas claim of 40mill uninsured is not accurate at all. That figure leads people to believe there are 40mill people out there who just can't get insurance. The truth is that 8million of those 40mill are illegal immigrants. Another 12mill are college students who can get, but don't want insurance. another 10 million are people who are just recently laid off and are between jobs without nsurance.
Those 10mill will eventually have insurance when they get a new job. (the 10mill figure stays the same as others lose jobs or quit and other find new jobs) And this leaves roughly 10million people who are chronically uninsured because they simply can't afford it, won't get a job, or are unable to buy it for some reason. 10mill out of a national population of 360million. 2.77% of our population is chronically uninsured.
Those 10mill people can be easily taken care of (along with reduced costs for the rest of us) by simple reform, like tort reform, lifting government restrictions barring buying across state lines, reforming pre-existing illness coverage, etc. Small, easy changes. Not multi-trillion dollar government controlled nonsense.
The premise of your whole argument here is invalid.
In other words, even in a privatized system, you can't avoid having socialized medicine. You have to pay for others one way or another.
The only difference between a private and govt system is who you pay your money too. Either way an entity takes that money and decides what to do with it. The only difference is in the case of the insurance company, they are charging you to do the exact same thing the govt would be doing for free. What part of this don't you understand?
Also, healthcare is a great example of a system where the profit motive is actually bad. Insurance companies have every incentive to give you as few benefits for your dollar as possible.
AGAIN, privatized healthcare means you pay an insurance company to act like a govt, to take everyone's money and then decide who gets what.
And remember, the system is set up so that you basically have to get insurance, because if you don't, everything is even *more* expensive.
Yes, lots of people in the US don't have insurance. The point is that you pay for all of thier healthcare. You have to. When uninsured people go to ER rooms, they are treated. Since they can't pay, the hospitals raise prices for the insured to cover it.
Again... you are ALREADY paying for the uninsured, through increased insurance costs. This is true. If you don't believe me, do a little research yourself.
@KurNorock i know you made this comment over a year ago, but i must tell you something. A woman my age pays over 500 dollars a month for health insurance, why? because i might have kids. I have cystarian ovaries, i can't have kids, so why do insurance companies care? well you see, they dont, they over charge women BIG time. I can't afford over 500 a month for insurance, i never get sick, so its absurd.
lol, those figures change a lot based on what source you look them up in. I have seen figured from left wing bloggers saying as low as 5%, and I have seen right wing web sites post as high as 75%. My source was the report put out by the canadian government themselves. I admit I heard the story probably 2 years ago so I may not have the figures right exactly, but I know the rate was going to be at least 50% by 2013 or so.
Another problem is that the US has a much larger population than canada. And a much more diverse population. Any government involvment with healthcare will cost more per capita than in less populated countries like canada.
This isn't just a comparison between the US and Canada. You're the one who brought up Canada in the first place. The US has the highest healthcare costs, per capita, in the world. Now, how can this be fully explained by having a "diverse population?" Do you honestly expect people to accept this as a credible explantation?
Do some research into how our "cheap private healthcare" turns into the most expensive in the world because of "diverse population." Then please explain it to me.
Ok, so you said 50% of Canadian's tax dollars go to medicare. First, I think you need to realize that we're quoting different kinds of figures here. What % of Canadian's tax dollars go towards healthcare doesn't say anything about the overall cost of healthcare per person, or the overall amount of money that the Canadian govt spends on healthcare. It could just as well be 1% or 100%, it wouldn't tell us anything about how much Canadian citizens is paying overall.
What I was talking about was GDP, gross domestic product of the govt. In other words, what % of govt expenditures is on healthcare. In Canada, in 2008, it was 10.7%, vs 15% for the US. This is DESPITE the fact that Canada pays for 70% of it's citizens healthcare, vs 40% in the US.
So Canada pays for more of it's citizen's healthcare than the US, but still manages to pay less. Why such a big disparity?
If you've been paying attention to my points, you should know EXACTLY WHY, by now!
yes it does mean that. The government will never spend any money without an entire army of bureaucrats signing the approval forms.
This is the real world. In some kind of fantasy utopia, sure the government could run everything efficiently without armies of bureaucrats, but this isn't fantasy.
And by the way, the post office is run fine. This whole govt can't run things is kind of a big myth, they can run things just as well as any mediocre business.
Funny you mentioned the school system, which is also run fine. It may not be as good as private schools, but it's better to have both govt schools and private schools, so that people who can't afford private can still go to school. Y'know, EXACTLY the same as healthcare.
The post office is opperating at a $1billion loss each year. Why is it that fed-ex can do the exact same job, only better, and still make a profit?
The school system is failing miserably. Not only is is sucking up money, it is producing ever dumber kids. My own brother graduated high school without knowing how to spell his own full name. Like I said, $20,000 per student per year goes to public schools. You would be hard pressed to find a private school that charges that much.
As for the post office, you say that it operates at a loss as if that's some sort of meaningful point. The Post Office is not a private business, which is why it's cheaper than Fedex or UPS.
Obviously the school system is "sucking up money." We already know it's govt funded. Obviously it's not going to be as good as private schools. If it were, private schools would have no reason to exist. It's purpose is to provide an alternative for people who can't afford private schools.
I guess you're a little confused on these terms. "Far left" would be communism, i.e. a completely government controlled market. Healthcare is one of the basic things the govt should be doing along with police/courts/military. Closing guantanamo bay isn't a left/right issue.
Those other things like bailouts are more like fixing problems with capitalism than moving towards socialism. One of the big problems with capitalism is that corporations tend to merge together.
Awesome pics. I really want to know what kind of frame they used... it's like... invisible, 'cause I doubt they'd just paste'em to the wallpaper... um... I don't see any thumbtacks, and they don't look like the type of people who'd thumbtack their baby pics on the wall... specially professional portraits. Any help?
Obama took the opportunity to push us over the cliff economically to create a crisis so people would be less likley to oppose him on issues such as take over of the Banks, Industry, Health Care, Broadcasting and and the Environment. Sounds a lot like the Communist Manifesto.
nice of you.. i as a kinda republican..dont make jokes of Obama or laugh at those i hear..they are not funny to me. (i voted mccain) there is no decency left..mostley by the LIBERALS it is all gone.
Penn: "I disagree with her on everything": but not if you knew anything about her.
Biden = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights
Obama = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights
McCain = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights Palin = weak drug warrior because her family members and friends smoke pot, pro-gun, supports jury rights
Penn ant Teller have worked together for 20+ years and Teller has never said a word on stage, TV or in an interview. He is not deaf or mute... it is part of a gimmick. Plus I think Penn does enough talking for both of them... also part of their act.
Teller's talked before. It IS a gimmick, but msot of us KNOW he can talk. He's just a person. He said himself he wished people wouldn't shit themselves when he talks. They should all have realized it's an act.
FOR THOSE WHO THINK HAVING A RELIGION MAKES ONE LESS OF A LIBERTARIAN
In the 1992 City Counsel election, her first foray into politics, Palin ran against John Hartrick. Palin won 530 votes to Hartricks 310. On the council, she successfully opposed a measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars by two hours. This surprised Hartrick because she was then a member of a church that advocated abstinence from alcohol.
RE: Alaska, Palin and Liberty. This is what Legalzoom says "On personal freedom alone, Alaska beats out the top five and holds the #1 position, but over 25% of the state's workforce is employed by state or local government, damaging its economic freedom score."
I respect Penn, but I think he's trying way too hard at this point to force Sarah Palin apologism. It's not like the woman isn't completely deserving of most of the things that get said about her.
So, Penn doesn't like celebrities making "weird video things"? So what is he doing posting this weird video thing? Look, I understand your point, but do you have to transfer your feelings about her onto others? You have a right to your opinions, just make them as clearly as possible, then sit down and let us judge those opinions on their merit.
It disgusts you? It's pure and simple dude. A true Libertarian is very tolerant of others by nature. What do you expect him to do, spew hate shit? Tell her who she can or can't worship? Tell her to put her guns away? BTW, Sarah Palin is also a Libertarian. The state of Alaska doesn't interfere with a doctor prescribing Marijuana and doesn't want to run your life. Is that what you hate about her? Or did the Elite not tell you that?
Dude, I don't care what U worship, just don't force it on me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sarah Palin is one the most intelligent, courageous women on the planet and, even after the Democrats and progressives have savaged her and pilloried her in the public square, she remains unbowed. This woman has more character and integrity in her little toe than BO and his entire administration combined. If America is truly blessed by God, Sarah Palin will emerge to serve in this county's highest office. We are now being ruled by BO, a truly evil man, who is not worthy to lick her stilettos.
Had to stop there... laughing... too hard... to type...
No, no, seriously: You believe Palin is "one of the MOST intelligent women on the planet"?? Are you just so head-buried in theological nonsense that you cannot see the light of day or just whacked?
I've worked with biologists, scientists and physicists, all female, all 'brilliant', sans stilettos, with far more neurons firing than this disturbing misinformed politician.
Yes, of course. I mean, who would not think that someone who believes she has foreign policy experience because she lives close to Russia is more intelligent than a Harvard laureate.
Here's what is a joke: Someone posting something without a HINT of sarcastic tone and then expecting someone to "get their joke."
Well sir, your joke was not only unfunny -- it was completely out of context.
// Don't pitty me pitty whatever turned you into a dried up bitter twat. //
Fucktards like you that deem themselves funny when in reality they're just punk-ass morons tend to tempt me into drying up, but so far I'm still quite moist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Um, I disagree with the Republicans about womens' rights, religious freedom, and a bunch of other things that I actually do have in common with the Democrats, so for Penn to say that if I disagree with one, i disagree with them all, would be in error. I do consider myself a progressive and there are plenty of things I disagree with Obama about, but not those things.
DOESN"T FUCKING WORK
BobDoleNSatanRmyniGz 3 weeks ago
The problem with Sarah Palin jokes, is that she's not that relevant. She ran for an office that's really an honorary title (V.P.), and lost. Making fun of her, just because everyone else is doing it, would be like kicking the kid on the playground with glasses. It may get a laugh, but it's still mean, and he didn't really do anything to bring it on himself. Using Palin as a punching bag is really no more sophisticated than dissing on Paris Hilton.
ShawnRavenfire 1 year ago
But she deserves it. The difference between her and that kid on the playground is that she was way WAY out of her league running for a political position. I mean, for chrissakes, she wanted to go to war with russia >.>
She's about as politically competent as Ann coulter, and not much smarter either. And now she's got fuckin TV shows about her being little miss alaska and whatnot.
Making fun of Palin is insurance in case she gets any more bright ideas >.>
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi If she ever runs for office again, I would welcome any (helpful) criticisms against her. (Explaining WHY she's not qualified, as opposed to just mocking her, and assuming that her lack of qualifications should be self-evident.) But for right now, she's just the host of some silly show that indicates to me that she's not taking herself very seriously. And I can respect that.
ShawnRavenfire 1 year ago
Why isn't she qualified? I guess she's qualified for it but she doesn't have the... 'sense' i guess you could say. Again, she said War with russia may be necessary when she had ran. Yeah, nice job causing world war three.
I dont know, she's Big headed and rash with her thinking. Being ice cold may be the norm in Alaska, but elsewhere that's just asking for trouble. And for that i mock that fuckin bitch xD
peepeevagi 1 year ago
You don't need to joke about someone who is a joke themselves.
Mattm1986 1 year ago
It's hard to pick on her because she was selected. She answered a call to duty from her party and said yes. You have to admire that a little bit even if you disagree with what she stands for. She let herself in for a world of shit for the prospect of playing second fiddle to McCain.
major600 1 year ago
Palin jokes aren't funny because Hillary is just as much of a clown.
Palin could see Russia, but Hillary braved stiper fire in Bosnia.
charlesvan13 1 year ago 2
penn is my hero
ducksrule1234 1 year ago
Sara Palin is the hottest, sexiest pro-global neocon out there
psovegeta 1 year ago 2
@psovegeta Yep, and Lisa Ann portrays her very well in her 'role'.
HoLOLcaust 1 year ago
Palin is a joke. Not being able to answer when she was asked what she reads, writing crib notes on her hand, abstinance only. She asked for all she gets and then some.
edteach2u 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
alaska is old russia
majikninja07 1 year ago
Ha! He makes a Palin joke, with that pig with lipstick line.
pennsays 1 year ago
You're too easy on her. She's a moron. Just say it.
penn919 1 year ago
@penn919 and who she was running against wasn't? Lets face face it... this was a vote of the lesser of two morons (well 3 2/3 moron, Dick isn't as much of a moron, he just makes up for it with his senility ...) and the moron won... go figure...
TopHatGuy682 1 year ago
Penn, rich, Right Wing Conservatives have been beating on Hillary for years. So what's up? Palin makes herself a target, Hillary does as well to an extent, but not like Palin, who seems to love her own ignorance.
olivemike81 1 year ago
@olivemike81 Even if you compare the two of them , Hillary still has the bigger /louder mouth. And i have yet to hear Hillary say anything that made me sit back and think... wow, Shes really is smarter than Palin.
Why on earth couldn't Powell have run?!? I would have voted for him.... twice...
TopHatGuy682 1 year ago
@TopHatGuy682 That may be true. But my point is still the same. His reason for making fun of Hillary but not Palin is bullshit. And I agree with you on Powell. I probably would have voted for him too. Powell seems to have the best of both worlds. He's fiscally conservative and at the same time he's not an uptight, ignorant douchebag like most of the Republican Party.
olivemike81 1 year ago
I play bass, too, though I'd hardly call it 'Be-bop Jazz'. It's kind of the exact opposite.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
When you try to be vice president, you have to accept criticism. Especially if you're a fucking moron.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Penn buddy, sounds like maybe streak of chivilary in your blood - I have the same annoying damned streak. ;)
rjworks13 1 year ago
@rjworks13 More like a double standard streak. The Right Wingers have been beating on Hillary for years. How come he has no problem making fun of her?
olivemike81 1 year ago
how can you parody, when reality is becoming more of a joke?
BARE456 1 year ago
I really dig that you have a hard time choosing left/right....the whole Left vs. Right paradigm is so phony and ridiculous...THEY'RE THE SAME THING! and it only divides us. liberals and republicans is just as bad as racism in my eyes.
Poonard 2 years ago
Why cant we just make ppl pay insurance to the people who they are getting services from. Medical insurance should be manage from the hospitals. Some hospitals are acually doing this. Instead of giving money to insurance you pay a weekly rate to the doctor and you get unlimited visits antibiotics and such. One person claimed to cut her insurance costs in half. Cut out the middle man and the price immediately goes down. Never been tried on a large scale though.
fieldman07 2 years ago
@fieldman07 that's not a large scale thing...however...it could be a grass roots movement and end up large scale...every hospital would be different....how would you handle things when you traveled or went on vacation? Perhaps part of the travel cost? Interesting idea. I like it!
Poonard 2 years ago
Cant seem to make jokes about it? Its because sarah palin is retarded... I wouldnt make jokes about her uterus bringing into the world a bunch of special olympics hopefuls... it would be in poor taste... so why comment about the nature of the uterus? we need to elect smarty people into politics... as a general rule not as though it would really change anything... if people cared about society they would care about liberty... not about their political party not like a football team
xtcsx 2 years ago
What do you know about Sarah Palin that you didn't hear from CNN or NBC?
KurNorock 2 years ago
He actually does agree with Palin on many issues. 2nd amendment rights, capitalism, free markets, energy.. a lot of things that really matter.
Sure he may disagree with her religious beliefs, or capital punishment, or whatever, but the bigger picture stuff, penn is far more conservative than he would probably like to admit.
KurNorock 2 years ago
He's not conservative and he's not liberal. He's libertarian. That pretty much means he thinks that as long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want. Gun rights, rights to marriage, and pretty much all the none crazy stuff from both sides of the spectrum.
dakotadenverdexter 2 years ago
Ok, I'll give you that, he is a libertarian. But I have also found that Libertarians have a lot more in common with conservatives than with liberals.
In any event, my point was that he actually DOES agree with Palin more often than not. I just think he is getting his news about her from biased sources. He even makes reference to her "I can see Russia from my house" comment, which she NEVER actually said. That was Tina Fey on SNL. I think if he did a little digging, he would like her more.
KurNorock 2 years ago
I don't think you get libertarians. On social issues, they are as far from conservatives as can be, just like they disagree with liberals on fiscal issues.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that libertarians even agree with the either parties 50% of the time. When it comes to fiscal issues, most republicans don't go far enough to the right for them.
Also, the idea that Sarah Palin is unintelligent and power hungry is not necessarily a liberal idea.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Well yeah, the current republican party is not far enough to the right. That is why they lost the last few elections and that is why I didn't say republicans in my comment, I said conservatives.
And yes, there are differences, but if you were to sit down and go issue to issue in comparison, libertarians are pretty far to the right.
KurNorock 2 years ago
I didn't say going farther to the right would help Republicans win elections. They are way too far to the right in my opinion, where as the Democrats are closer to the middle, which is a good thing to me. Of course the Democrats have other problems.
The interesting thing about libertarians is that although they are extremists, being really far to the right on fiscal and left on social kind of evens them, in a wierd sort of way.
But they are as close to republicans as they are to democrats.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Democrats close to the middle? What country are you living in? The democrats are so far left they are practically europeans. Come on, universal healthcare, cap and trade, closing guantanamo bay, taking over private enterprises, bail outs, and attempting to regulate every portion of our lives.
Instead of listening to the democrats tell you what they are doing, take a look at what they are ACTUALLY doing. It is two very different things.
KurNorock 2 years ago
McCain lost the election because he was campaigning to the center. He alienated his conservative base. Obama didn't say anything during his campaign except "hope and change" which confused some people and brainwashed many others. Now that his (and the democrats) true extreme fringe left attitude is on display, his approval ratings are falling fast.
And libertarians are not left on social issues. They aren't as far right as extreme conservatives, but definitely NOT left.
KurNorock 2 years ago
The more companies merge, the less consumer choice their is, the more capitalism fails. This also creates situations where companies can be "too big to fail." They *really* had no choice but to bail out those companies, and what libertarians don't seem to understand is that this is ultimately a failure of the uninhibited free market.
Anyway, none of those things you mentioned place the democrats on the "extreme left."
Maytag99 2 years ago
Democrats really are closer to centrists.
Now, libertarians ARE DEFINITELY left on social issues. They are for: legalization of pot, prostitution, gambling. They are against: gov't benefits for marriage, any government money for anythingt religious... well, pretty much any gov't money for anything, if it's not one of the big three: courts / police / military.
Personally I think it needs to be updated to a big 6, with healthcare schools and roads included. But that's just me.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Healthcare is not something the government should be doing. They can't. There just is not enough money and besides that, the government can't run anything efficiently. Medicare, the school system, the post office, you name it, the government is running it at huge deficits and poor performance.
Closing guantanamo is a left right issue, because only the left seems to think it is a good idea.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Please explain to me how the government taking control of GM, banks, and trying to take over 1/6 of the countries economy (healthcare) is not socialism?
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. The USA is not the richest, most powerful country, with the highest standards of living for nothing. It has worked for over 200 years and All the things the current administration wants to do has a long history of failure.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Libertarians, like democrates and republicans, come in various degrees. Yes, the most extreme libertarians want legal drugs and hookers, etc. But the majority of libertarians recognize the difference between liberty and anarchy.
And just why should the government run our schools? They already are and are failing miserably at it. The government spends almost $20,000 per student per year on education. Tell me you couldn't educate your own kids better for much cheaper.
KurNorock 2 years ago
By the way, I agree with you that "there is nothing wrong with capitalism," in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with socialism. They're both flawed, but I never said anything was morally wrong with either of them. I think the the best system is a mix between the two.
I don't think you know many libertarians. Traditional libertarians want government as small as possible. Most libertarians want drugs/prostitution legalized. Don't take my word for it, ask around.
Maytag99 2 years ago
I am not even talking about moraly right or wrong. I am talking about what works to benefit the most people, and what does not. Socialism fails every time it is tried. It is completely unsustainable. Capitalism, on the other hand, creates wealth, creates freedom, and creates opportunity. In capitalism if you don't like making $20,000 a year, you can get off your ass and find a way to make more. With socialism, if you make more, they take it from you. Where is the incentive?
KurNorock 2 years ago
Now, as for the standard line "it creates wealth, freedom, opportunity, blah blah," you're not telling me anything revolutionary here. That's all absolutely correct. But it's also just one side of the story. Although it creates wealth, it also creates poverty because that wealth tends to be concentrated to a few individuals. With freedom comes risk. It's not all good. There are downsides to capitalism.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Capitalism doesn't create poverty. Lazy people create poverty. Capitalism requires personal responsibility, which 95% of people have. The other 5% are usually taken care of anyway by private charities. Government hand outs like welfare and foodstamps just breed more laziness. People on these programs don't want to work for a living and why should they when they get everything for free?
Socialism is the same way. Everything is provided by the government. Who is going to work?
KurNorock 2 years ago
And that brings us to why socialism will always fail. To get the people working requires a dictator with absolute power over their lives. Nobody wants to live that way. So they would fight back, only socialists don't allow citizens to own guns.
And eventually, the lack of tax revenue from the lazy, oppressed masses, causes the country to go bankrupt. Without the money the government can no provide for its people. Everything falls apart.
KurNorock 2 years ago
A college professor once tried an experiment when his class decided socialism was a good idea. He told them that his entire class would get a C and pass the course. But to do this, there had to be enough points to spread around. So any students making an A had to offset the students getting F's. And students making B's had to offset the ones getting D's. The students all agreed. The class worked this way until the students making A's and B's got tired of working hard to only get a C.
KurNorock 2 years ago
At the same time, the students making C's and D's got lazy as well, figuring the smarter kids would make up their slack anyway.
After just one month the class only had enough points to grade everybody a D-. The students decided then to quit the experiment and return to normal grading.
That is EXACTLY how socialism, and Obamas "redistribution of wealth" works in the REAL world.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Now granted, socialism doesn't have a very good track record. I'm not convinced that a socialist country couldn't succeed. But that's purely academic; I'm generally pretty happy with capitalism, I just think it needs a little socialism mixed in to keep things balanced. Things like a progressive tax scale, welfare, UHC, public school system, to keep the gap of wealthy and poor from getting too great. I think that pure capitalism without any of these things is ultimately as flawed as socialism
Maytag99 2 years ago
Do you have a job? If you do, is the big boss, the guy you work for, a rich guy or a poor guy? The company I work for has 400 employees and the owner is a rich guy, makes about $1.5 million a year.
Wealth trickles down. Rich people pay the poor people. If the rich people are taxed harder and have less money, they don't take the hit themselves. They lay you off, or reduce your pay, or raise the price of the product they manufacture so your expenses are higher.
KurNorock 2 years ago
And why should my boss be forced to move out of his huge house, or reduce his quality of life at all, in order to keep me on at his company after the government levies a $30,000 tax on him for really no reason?
Money is not a zero sum game. There is always more money to go around. Just because bill gates is rich does not mean there has to be 100 poor people. If the government taxes the rich, does that make you any richer?
This is all about punishing success.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Now as for your sales pitch on Capitalism, I agree with most of your points. However, like any sales pitch, you're ignoring all the inherent flaws in capitalism.
For example, you didn't address this: in a capitalistic society, wealth tends to concentrate towards a few individuals. There is not a direct correlation between working hard and success, luck is also a big factor. So if someone fails, it is not always or solely due to laziness. Also, not everyone has the same advantages.
Maytag99 2 years ago
I didn't address it ecause it is a flawed question. I disagree with the premise entirely. How does capitalism concentrate towardsa few individuals? It simply does not. It concentrates towards the people who are willing to work hard and take personal responsibility.
You think the founder of some large company never failed before? They fail all the time, but they work hard and overcome their failure. Yes luck plays a role, but if you let that stop you, then you deserve your crappy job.
KurNorock 2 years ago
And don't give me that "Not everyone has the same advantages" crap. This is America. EVERYONE has the same opportunity. Sure, if your daddy is rich and pays your way to college, then sure, you got a head start. But even if you have that head start that doesn't mean you will succeed. And not having that head start does not mean you will fail either.
Your life is what YOU make of it. Getting side tracked by failure, bad luck, or envy of the rich, is YOUR own fault.
KurNorock 2 years ago
The US is the most prosperous nation on the planet. We have the highest standard of living in the world. We didn't get that way by pure dumb luck.
Anyway, this discussion is getting very large and is taking a lot of time out of my day. I've said my piece. It is up to you to decide if it had merit or if you would rather just blow it off.
KurNorock 2 years ago
traditional libertarians, LIKE traditional conservatives, do want as small a government as possible. Like Ronald Regan said "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
And I happen to know many libertarians, and like I have already said, most of them recognize the difference between liberty and anarchy.
You can be as free as you like, but there are always some things that you just can not have legal for a society to function.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Most countries have hybrid healthcare systems, meaning they have govt and private plans.
First, let me explain to you why you're dead wrong. Government healthcare is cheaper than private. This is because private healthcare is insurance companies, who are basically middlemen who play the role of the govt, in the sense that they take everybody's pooled rescources and then dole it out to those who need it.
Maytag99 2 years ago
The US has a hybrid health system already. 40% of the money spent on healthcare comes from the government. Medicare, medicade, AHCCCS, and various others.
And government healthcare is not cheaper than private. So far the healthcare bill calls for $1.2trillion. And if we look at medicare, which was supposed to cost $40mill and ended up costing $1trill, then we can also expect the new bill to cost significantly more than the project.
KurNorock 2 years ago
And not only will the bill cost way too much, it would lead to rampant rationing, and shortages of doctors, since half the bill is about reducing doctor pay. Who is going to go through 10 years of medical school, racking up student loans, only to graduate and make $40,000 a year?
The rationing has already started. Obama himself said he would rather loop out a 100 year old woman with pain pills, than give her a pace maker that would greatly improve her quality of life.
KurNorock 2 years ago
However, you won't hear me arguing with you about the bill they are passing right now. Certainly, cutting doctor's pay is a terrible idea.
In some countries, there are govt scholarships that let people go to medical school for free. This is something we should be doing here. Nevermind the deficits, this will save us money in the long run.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Government grants and scholarships are NOT free. They come out of yours and my pocket. If somebody is smart enough to be a doctor, they can find a way to do it themselves. I shouldn't have to pay for somebody else to go to school. And just how would that save us money anyway? Right now it doesn't cost you, me, or the country, one dime for a person to go to medical school.
KurNorock 2 years ago
But we should definitely have UHC, we just need to do it right. Most other countries in the world are capable of doing it right, so I'm sure it's at least possible for us to do it right too.
Again, the US's healthcare is rated the #1 most expensive per capita, and #16 in terms of quality.
And remember, insurance companies basically ARE socialized medicine. It's everyone pooling thier money together to share risk. Why pay someone to do the same thing the govt can easily do for free?
Maytag99 2 years ago
There is no doing it right. In Canada the price of the healthcare system is going to be 50% of their tax revenue by 2013. In Canada AND the UK, there is extensive rationing, women getting surgery for breast cancer but never being able to get the followup chemotherapy needed. People pulling their own teeth because they have been waiting literally years, to see a dentist. You can find stories like this every day out of Canada or the UK.
KurNorock 2 years ago
And here is the part you don't know. A private healthcare company does not just take your money and pool it for when it is needed. They use the money in investments and GROW the money. The average person uses nearly double the amount of money in healthcare than they paid in over their lives. Especially in the senior years of their lives. They can do this because the insurance company uses your money to make more money. The government CAN'T do this.
KurNorock 2 years ago
You said govt healthcare is not cheaper than private, but you failed to provide any comparisons illustrating your point. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.
With private healthcare, we are basically paying insurance companies to fill the role govt would fill with UHC. So by definition, private healthcare is more expensive, because there is an unnecessary middleman. This is just a basic economic fact.
That's why the US's current healthcare system is the most expensive, per capita, in the world.
Maytag99 2 years ago
The difference between private healthcare and UHC is that the government is horribly inefficient at doing most anything. The government will spend $250,000 for you to have a $50,000 surgery. What is the extra money for? For the bureaucrats whether or not you actually need the surgery. For the bureaucrats who design the book the first set of bureaucrats use to decide if you need the surgery.. the list goes on.
Have you actually read the bill?
KurNorock 2 years ago
Right, that's the typical libertarian response, "well the govt is just inefficient at everything." It's kind of like liberals who complain that "corporations are always evil." Both views are sort of right, but sort of exaggerated.
I'm not talking about that specific bill, I'm talking about UHC in general. It just means that govt fills the role of the insurance company. It doesn't necessarily mean that any bureaucrats need to approve your surgeries.
Maytag99 2 years ago
I realize that govt scholarships come out of my pocket, but my opinion is that some things are worth paying for because they save us all money in the long run.
Now, let's talk about Canada's Healthcare System. Libertarians love to pick on Canada, despite the fact that many countries in the world have hybrid healthcare systems. As far as I know, Canada probably has the least amount of private options, and in that sense is the most socialist. This makes them easy to pick on.
Maytag99 2 years ago
You still have not explained how us paying for a person to go to medical school will save us money over them paying for it themselves.
And while YOU may be willing to shell out more money to the government, that doesn't mean the rest of us are. I personally would rather keep MY money to use as I see fit. I don't want, nor need, the government taking my money because they think they know what is best for me. I am not some child with an allowance.
KurNorock 2 years ago
You said that Canadian Healthcare is going to be 50% of thier tax revenue. Where did you get this figure? I looked it up, and apparently in 2008 govt healthcare expenditures were 10.7% of the GDP. This is compared to the US which was 15%. It's also apparently more than Norway, Luxemburg, and Switzerland.
Now for criticism regarding Canada's wait times. Yes, this is a valid criticism, but you've blown it out of proportion somewhat.
Maytag99 2 years ago
The main thing to remember is that in Canada, there are no waiting lists for *ER* care. It's about the same there as it is here. ER care in the US may even have longer wait times just because our ER rooms are overcrowded, because not enough people have insurance and can't afford preventive care. By the way, ER care is always more expensive than preventative, which is another reason why our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.
Maytag99 2 years ago
By the way, a poll in 2009 found that 82% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system to the US. 8% of people in the US prefer thier healthcare system to Canada's.
So let's restate the facts: Canada's healthcare system has 10 times more public approval than the US, and is cheaper than the US.
Do you pay for insurance, KurNorock? You do realize that you are already paying for uninsured people, don't you? The ER room takes everyone, insured or not, and as a result the insured pay more.
Maytag99 2 years ago
You see, like it or not, we do have socialized medicine in this country, it's just socialized medicine facilitated indirectly by the private market. In a civilized society, we don't just let people die in the street.
So if we're going to end up with socialized medicine anyway, why not cut out the middleman insurance companies and do it directly? It really doesn't matter how incompetent govt is, this system WILL be cheaper. There is evidence of this all over the world.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Your poll is wrong. I've seen many polls claiming the exact opposite. Just for fun, take a look at local phone books in northern Minnesota, washington, other northern boarder states. Then ask yourself why there is such a huge number of medical clinics in these areas as opposed to other parts of the country. It is because there are hundreds of thousands of canadians crossing the boarder to get medical care because they CAN'T get it in their own country.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Simply stating something as fact does not make it so. I know canada's healthcare is very expensive, and I know it has sub-par performance compared to the US. I recognize the figures of performance and quality you gave and so I know they are from an organization that is heavily in favor of socialized health care, so how can i trust their statistics?
KurNorock 2 years ago
And yes I do pay for my health insurance. But no I do not pay for others to go to the ER, not with my insurance anyway.
You are making the common liberal mistake of thinking that the insurance companies own the hospitals. It is federal law that ERs take in everybody regardless of medical covereage, and so it is the government (our tax dollars) that pay for those uninsured to go to the ER.
KurNorock 2 years ago
You said I'm making "a common liberal mistake of thinking that the insurance companies own the hospitals"? For real? It seems you haven't done any research into this subject whatsoever. Please do, so that you will see what I am saying is 100% correct. In the meantime, a short explanation:
The govt most certainly does NOT pay for the uninsured. The hospital simply raises costs. The insurance companies who pay these costs, in turn raise rates. The costs are passed on to YOU.
Maytag99 2 years ago
So my poll is wrong? I honestly doubt that. From my own personal anecdotal evidence, most Canadians I know tell me they definetly prefer thier healthcare system to ours. But forget anecdotal evidence, let's focus on the facts.
The average wait time to see a medical specialist: Canada: 4 weeks. US: 3 weeks. ER wait times are a little longer in Canada, but Canadians have better chances of getting medical attention on nights, weekends and holidays.
Maytag99 2 years ago
@Maytag99 Hmm, these are interesting facts. What's your source?
pennsays 2 years ago
@Maytag99 There's a lot more reasons to not want government health care. It's a HUGE portion of our economy. I hate to quote some of our leaders but Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex when he left office, now we have Ron Paul warning us about Medical Industrial Complexes. If we hand over this huge chunk of our money to the government how will we ever get it back? I think both sides of this argument need to be more closely looked at by all of us, to critical not to. peace!
Poonard 2 years ago
Let's agree to disagree, Poonard. Just by the nature of how insurance works, the bigger the pool of people sharing risk, the cheaper it is for everyone. Therefore, logically government healthcare will always be superior to privatized, just for simple economical reasons.
You can't trust the govt, you cant trust corporations. Let's not marry ourselves to socialist or libertarian ideals, but rather choose the systems that work best pragmatically.
Maytag99 2 years ago
@Maytag99 Penn touches on this subject somewhat in this episode: watch?v=M3JdV13FKOg
pennsays 1 year ago
@Maytag99 That's assuming the usage of care doesn't change.. When you add people who did not have care into the pool of people who have care and they start receiving care without paying for it, this saves money for noone and benefits only those who were once without it. This is faulty math that the proponents of UHC promote. The problem with this system today is that there is a disconnect between cost and consumption of care. People consume care without regard to cost b/c insurance enables them.
imzjustplayin 1 year ago
And your claim that there is a huge number of Canadians crossing the border to get medical care in the Northern states? I've looked into this, and there is apparently some truth to it for certain kinds of treatments. Mainly mental health and cancer treatments. However, apparently you're not the first person to make this claim, and it's heavily exaggerated.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Again, just to be clear: insurance companies are the private market's way of imitating socialized medicine. It's a system where everyone pools their money together and shares risk. THIS IS SOCIALISM. The money may be held by a private company, but it doesn't change what it is. If you want REAL privatized healthcare, then cancel your insurance and pay your own costs!
But nobody wants that. The reason we have insurance companies is because the free market spoke, and it wanted socialism.
Maytag99 2 years ago
@Maytag99 Its not socialism its called risk pooling. Insurance companies pool the risk of many clients and make several categories of risk assessment based on average loss of each insuree.. They then take that minimal break even value and tack on a premium to make a profit... Government run care doesn't run a profit... It generally runs at a loss, taxpayer funded, and serves everyone... hence socialized. If private healthcare is socialism then so is auto, homeowner, and life insurance...
budda10000 1 year ago
@budda10000 Technically it's not socialism, but it's very similar.
The point of govt healthcare is not to run a profit. That's the point of a business. What govt run healthcare DOES do is keep the costs down for everyone, precisely because there is no need to make a profit. It's also more effecient, because of that risk pooling thing you were talking about. The more people under one plan, the more effecient it is, so the ideal way is to have everyone under one plan.
Maytag99 1 year ago
@Maytag99 my health insurance has doubled.how is that more affordable?
cassidy99ful 10 months ago
@cassidy99ful Not sure why that is, but correlation is not causation. Pretty much every country with universal healthcare has cheaper healthcare costs per capita, yet similar wait times and healthcare quality. We aren't even close to having universal healthcare here yet, but we should all be working towards it, it just makes the most sense.
Maytag99 10 months ago
We are paying insurance companies to fill the role the govt would in socialized healthcare. This is why our system is the most expensive in the world! It has little to do with "cultural diversity."
You clearly need to do more research on this issue. Please, realize that this country already has socialized medicine, it is just fake socialized medicine that we pay extra for.
It's a choice between this or real socialized medicine. There is no 3rd option!
Maytag99 2 years ago
Too long, didn't read.
jbxspartan 2 years ago
yes, there IS a 3rd option... opening up the free market to the insurance industry so the consumer can shop for the coverage they want, from whichever company they want
make it a personal responsibility to buy your own, instead of employer provided, and you could carry it from job to job... buy from a company based out of state... etc
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
While that doesn't sound like a bad idea, I think we'd ultimately be better off with universal healthcare. Besides the fact that there's a lot of evidence that it would be cheaper and of similar quality, there's also the moral idea that everyone is entitled to healthcare as a basic human right.
Maytag99 2 years ago
healthcare is not a right
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
No. But it's easy to see why someone might believe, for moral reasons, that it *should* be a right.
Maytag99 2 years ago
@Maytag99 the thing is...what they are offering us, is not like what you are describing. It was written by the very insurance companies we all despise along with wall street to wrench even more money out of us. i respect the fact that you have your evidence and I have mine. be glad to talk about it! take care!
Poonard 2 years ago
@Zaxxon2008 Why stop at a 3rd? Why shouldn't there be a 4th, 5th, or 6th option? By opening the market this would happen! :) I liked the idea i read a few comments up about working with individual hospitals to take out the middle man. Seemed interesting.
Poonard 2 years ago
@Maytag99 Sure there is, and it's becoming a reality. The same companies we hate paying too are the same companies who've worked with wall street and our government to make this fake socialized health care. it's really sad. There are some very interesting new ideas out there too. No reason to limit ourselves EVER.
Poonard 2 years ago
This is all false. Do you really know how many people in this country have insurance? Obamas claim of 40mill uninsured is not accurate at all. That figure leads people to believe there are 40mill people out there who just can't get insurance. The truth is that 8million of those 40mill are illegal immigrants. Another 12mill are college students who can get, but don't want insurance. another 10 million are people who are just recently laid off and are between jobs without nsurance.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Those 10mill will eventually have insurance when they get a new job. (the 10mill figure stays the same as others lose jobs or quit and other find new jobs) And this leaves roughly 10million people who are chronically uninsured because they simply can't afford it, won't get a job, or are unable to buy it for some reason. 10mill out of a national population of 360million. 2.77% of our population is chronically uninsured.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Those 10mill people can be easily taken care of (along with reduced costs for the rest of us) by simple reform, like tort reform, lifting government restrictions barring buying across state lines, reforming pre-existing illness coverage, etc. Small, easy changes. Not multi-trillion dollar government controlled nonsense.
The premise of your whole argument here is invalid.
KurNorock 2 years ago
In other words, even in a privatized system, you can't avoid having socialized medicine. You have to pay for others one way or another.
The only difference between a private and govt system is who you pay your money too. Either way an entity takes that money and decides what to do with it. The only difference is in the case of the insurance company, they are charging you to do the exact same thing the govt would be doing for free. What part of this don't you understand?
Maytag99 2 years ago
Also, healthcare is a great example of a system where the profit motive is actually bad. Insurance companies have every incentive to give you as few benefits for your dollar as possible.
AGAIN, privatized healthcare means you pay an insurance company to act like a govt, to take everyone's money and then decide who gets what.
And remember, the system is set up so that you basically have to get insurance, because if you don't, everything is even *more* expensive.
Maytag99 2 years ago
you talk too much
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
Yes, lots of people in the US don't have insurance. The point is that you pay for all of thier healthcare. You have to. When uninsured people go to ER rooms, they are treated. Since they can't pay, the hospitals raise prices for the insured to cover it.
Again... you are ALREADY paying for the uninsured, through increased insurance costs. This is true. If you don't believe me, do a little research yourself.
Maytag99 2 years ago
@KurNorock i know you made this comment over a year ago, but i must tell you something. A woman my age pays over 500 dollars a month for health insurance, why? because i might have kids. I have cystarian ovaries, i can't have kids, so why do insurance companies care? well you see, they dont, they over charge women BIG time. I can't afford over 500 a month for insurance, i never get sick, so its absurd.
LarendriaThePagan 11 months ago
lol, those figures change a lot based on what source you look them up in. I have seen figured from left wing bloggers saying as low as 5%, and I have seen right wing web sites post as high as 75%. My source was the report put out by the canadian government themselves. I admit I heard the story probably 2 years ago so I may not have the figures right exactly, but I know the rate was going to be at least 50% by 2013 or so.
KurNorock 2 years ago
Another problem is that the US has a much larger population than canada. And a much more diverse population. Any government involvment with healthcare will cost more per capita than in less populated countries like canada.
KurNorock 2 years ago
This isn't just a comparison between the US and Canada. You're the one who brought up Canada in the first place. The US has the highest healthcare costs, per capita, in the world. Now, how can this be fully explained by having a "diverse population?" Do you honestly expect people to accept this as a credible explantation?
Do some research into how our "cheap private healthcare" turns into the most expensive in the world because of "diverse population." Then please explain it to me.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Ok, so you said 50% of Canadian's tax dollars go to medicare. First, I think you need to realize that we're quoting different kinds of figures here. What % of Canadian's tax dollars go towards healthcare doesn't say anything about the overall cost of healthcare per person, or the overall amount of money that the Canadian govt spends on healthcare. It could just as well be 1% or 100%, it wouldn't tell us anything about how much Canadian citizens is paying overall.
Maytag99 2 years ago
What I was talking about was GDP, gross domestic product of the govt. In other words, what % of govt expenditures is on healthcare. In Canada, in 2008, it was 10.7%, vs 15% for the US. This is DESPITE the fact that Canada pays for 70% of it's citizens healthcare, vs 40% in the US.
So Canada pays for more of it's citizen's healthcare than the US, but still manages to pay less. Why such a big disparity?
If you've been paying attention to my points, you should know EXACTLY WHY, by now!
Maytag99 2 years ago
yes it does mean that. The government will never spend any money without an entire army of bureaucrats signing the approval forms.
This is the real world. In some kind of fantasy utopia, sure the government could run everything efficiently without armies of bureaucrats, but this isn't fantasy.
KurNorock 2 years ago
And by the way, the post office is run fine. This whole govt can't run things is kind of a big myth, they can run things just as well as any mediocre business.
Funny you mentioned the school system, which is also run fine. It may not be as good as private schools, but it's better to have both govt schools and private schools, so that people who can't afford private can still go to school. Y'know, EXACTLY the same as healthcare.
Maytag99 2 years ago
The post office is opperating at a $1billion loss each year. Why is it that fed-ex can do the exact same job, only better, and still make a profit?
The school system is failing miserably. Not only is is sucking up money, it is producing ever dumber kids. My own brother graduated high school without knowing how to spell his own full name. Like I said, $20,000 per student per year goes to public schools. You would be hard pressed to find a private school that charges that much.
KurNorock 2 years ago
As for the post office, you say that it operates at a loss as if that's some sort of meaningful point. The Post Office is not a private business, which is why it's cheaper than Fedex or UPS.
Obviously the school system is "sucking up money." We already know it's govt funded. Obviously it's not going to be as good as private schools. If it were, private schools would have no reason to exist. It's purpose is to provide an alternative for people who can't afford private schools.
Maytag99 2 years ago
I guess you're a little confused on these terms. "Far left" would be communism, i.e. a completely government controlled market. Healthcare is one of the basic things the govt should be doing along with police/courts/military. Closing guantanamo bay isn't a left/right issue.
Those other things like bailouts are more like fixing problems with capitalism than moving towards socialism. One of the big problems with capitalism is that corporations tend to merge together.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Matt Damon is a real douche
bag shitstick.
bwilli93 2 years ago
Awesome pics. I really want to know what kind of frame they used... it's like... invisible, 'cause I doubt they'd just paste'em to the wallpaper... um... I don't see any thumbtacks, and they don't look like the type of people who'd thumbtack their baby pics on the wall... specially professional portraits. Any help?
DjLuckyOnline 2 years ago
It could just be double sided tape, or that gummy re-usable sticky stuff that comes off almost anything without leaving marks
UncleChevitz 2 years ago
Skybari.......wow....REALLY?
popegeorgeringo 2 years ago
Haha - sp 4 prez in 2012. now that's funny.
eddiequest4 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sara Palin for president 2012!
ce48011 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't make Jokes about Obama because there is nothing funny about how he is destroying the Country.
skybari 2 years ago
skybari - dude, the country was already destroyed when obama started work.
eddiequest4 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama took the opportunity to push us over the cliff economically to create a crisis so people would be less likley to oppose him on issues such as take over of the Banks, Industry, Health Care, Broadcasting and and the Environment. Sounds a lot like the Communist Manifesto.
skybari 2 years ago
Funny how some can see the truth so clearly, while others are blinded by personality and promises of a utophia.
ce48011 2 years ago
You mean utopia... never mind.
mhlafors 2 years ago
it's cuz you want to bang her and you dont want to ruin your chances lol
spongah 2 years ago
nice of you.. i as a kinda republican..dont make jokes of Obama or laugh at those i hear..they are not funny to me. (i voted mccain) there is no decency left..mostley by the LIBERALS it is all gone.
ultralight9 2 years ago
Penn: "I disagree with her on everything": but not if you knew anything about her.
Biden = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights
Obama = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights
McCain = drug warrior, anti-gun, despises jury rights Palin = weak drug warrior because her family members and friends smoke pot, pro-gun, supports jury rights
WAKE UP, AMERICA.
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Obama has done drugs. He's even admitted it. WAKE UP, LIBERTARIANJURY.
WACAcameraman 2 years ago
Obama admitted to not only weed but cocaine. You can take the blinders off whenever your ready.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
Penn, you have class.
danco35 2 years ago 2
Why doesn't Teller talk?
SleepyFoxx 2 years ago
Penn ant Teller have worked together for 20+ years and Teller has never said a word on stage, TV or in an interview. He is not deaf or mute... it is part of a gimmick. Plus I think Penn does enough talking for both of them... also part of their act.
jonathonstanaford 2 years ago
Teller's talked before. It IS a gimmick, but msot of us KNOW he can talk. He's just a person. He said himself he wished people wouldn't shit themselves when he talks. They should all have realized it's an act.
smitty01209 2 years ago
Gary nobody likes Palin or wants to live in Alaska. Palin is just incoherent and unfit for office and Alaska is boring as all hell.
jos7886 2 years ago
Speak for yourself...
sancho3 2 years ago
Nah I speak for a majority.
jos7886 2 years ago
FOR THOSE WHO THINK HAVING A RELIGION MAKES ONE LESS OF A LIBERTARIAN
In the 1992 City Counsel election, her first foray into politics, Palin ran against John Hartrick. Palin won 530 votes to Hartricks 310. On the council, she successfully opposed a measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars by two hours. This surprised Hartrick because she was then a member of a church that advocated abstinence from alcohol.
garyworkman 2 years ago
RE: Alaska, Palin and Liberty. This is what Legalzoom says "On personal freedom alone, Alaska beats out the top five and holds the #1 position, but over 25% of the state's workforce is employed by state or local government, damaging its economic freedom score."
garyworkman 2 years ago
I respect Penn, but I think he's trying way too hard at this point to force Sarah Palin apologism. It's not like the woman isn't completely deserving of most of the things that get said about her.
redrosary 2 years ago
Good thing he didn't, or he would meet the fate of David Letterman.
darkwolf228 2 years ago
So, Penn doesn't like celebrities making "weird video things"? So what is he doing posting this weird video thing? Look, I understand your point, but do you have to transfer your feelings about her onto others? You have a right to your opinions, just make them as clearly as possible, then sit down and let us judge those opinions on their merit.
Bullettube 2 years ago
Really not sure where you are coming from on this one.... kinda odd to get picky on who or what you humorously pick on now isn't it.
Seriously man what if that retarded barbie doll was actually elected??? Tells you something about the people of Alaska doesn't it.....
pomeroy82 2 years ago
I think it's pretty big of Penn to not make jokes about the retarded. She's like the Paris Hilton of politics.
ScaryGuy255 2 years ago
Sympathy for Sarah Palin? This Penn says kinda disgusts me, and I just saw the Penn Says about the fat naked elvis impersonator with a baby dick.
jos7886 2 years ago
It disgusts you? It's pure and simple dude. A true Libertarian is very tolerant of others by nature. What do you expect him to do, spew hate shit? Tell her who she can or can't worship? Tell her to put her guns away? BTW, Sarah Palin is also a Libertarian. The state of Alaska doesn't interfere with a doctor prescribing Marijuana and doesn't want to run your life. Is that what you hate about her? Or did the Elite not tell you that?
Dude, I don't care what U worship, just don't force it on me.
garyworkman 2 years ago
Wtf? Who's forcing shit on you? Palin? MAN FUCK PALIN! How's that?
jos7886 2 years ago
The only reason Palin was "unbowed," was because she didn't have to answer any fucking questions!
McCain knew she's a dumb fuck, so he had to babysit her during interviews, and she couldn't even disclose which newspapers and magazines she reads.
For God's sake, she didn't even know of any times that her RUNNING MATE voted for deregulation. But that didn't stop her from claiming he did.
She was never a candidate. She's a mascot.
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
mascot? hell hes in the whitehouse aka the black bradybunch.haaaaaa
sanddmann3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sarah Palin is one the most intelligent, courageous women on the planet and, even after the Democrats and progressives have savaged her and pilloried her in the public square, she remains unbowed. This woman has more character and integrity in her little toe than BO and his entire administration combined. If America is truly blessed by God, Sarah Palin will emerge to serve in this county's highest office. We are now being ruled by BO, a truly evil man, who is not worthy to lick her stilettos.
baalout 2 years ago
// Sarah Palin is one the most intelligent... //
Had to stop there... laughing... too hard... to type...
No, no, seriously: You believe Palin is "one of the MOST intelligent women on the planet"?? Are you just so head-buried in theological nonsense that you cannot see the light of day or just whacked?
I've worked with biologists, scientists and physicists, all female, all 'brilliant', sans stilettos, with far more neurons firing than this disturbing misinformed politician.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She is smarter than Obama. If you don't like me putting down obama maybe you should raise Palin to help your boy.
hdl13 2 years ago
// She is smarter than Obama. //
Yes, of course. I mean, who would not think that someone who believes she has foreign policy experience because she lives close to Russia is more intelligent than a Harvard laureate.
Truly, I pity you.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago 2
You don't even know that was a joke. Don't pitty me pitty whatever turned you into a dried up bitter twat.
hdl13 2 years ago
// You don't even know that was a joke. //
Here's what is a joke: Someone posting something without a HINT of sarcastic tone and then expecting someone to "get their joke."
Well sir, your joke was not only unfunny -- it was completely out of context.
// Don't pitty me pitty whatever turned you into a dried up bitter twat. //
Fucktards like you that deem themselves funny when in reality they're just punk-ass morons tend to tempt me into drying up, but so far I'm still quite moist.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago 4
Why don't you stop trolling and get a life.
darkwolf228 2 years ago
Why don't you get a me a life with all the hate for Palin you have. That and $1 ought to get you a bag of chips.
hdl13 2 years ago
troll
BannedCinema 2 years ago
Good on ya, Penn.
Ekobean 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why are you a fag
Codiathy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whats the difference between palins mouth & v-agina? only 20% of what comes out of her v-agina is retarded
even if Obama bombed his own country with nukes by accident, he would still be a better president than Bush.
mcfossil shit his pants, palin drank down the corn shit & gulped for more,
rick davis fingered all the palin kids while todd sucked old cum from cindys c=unt, how were they supposed to win ??
HOsarahpalinisacunt 2 years ago
HOsarahpalinisacunt,
You're fucked up in the head. How dare you make fun of mentally challenged children!
axe863 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Um, I disagree with the Republicans about womens' rights, religious freedom, and a bunch of other things that I actually do have in common with the Democrats, so for Penn to say that if I disagree with one, i disagree with them all, would be in error. I do consider myself a progressive and there are plenty of things I disagree with Obama about, but not those things.
AimeeL73 2 years ago
well making jokes about palin is like shoving a child in a wheel chair down stairs, it's just to easy.
Crazyman1212 2 years ago 3
The Pig-with-Lipstick Pile. Hyphens really don't translate to the verbal mediums that well, do they?
clcradio 2 years ago
Sarah Palin was running for the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and believes the Earth is 6000 years old.
She deserves jokes, to say the least.
directedchaos 2 years ago