2:26 It's one of the first time I must disagree with you Thunderfoot. If the US were still respecting individual rights of life, liberty, property and the pursue of happiness, the government would simply be an army, a police and a court system. Plus, if you have a letter that you really want to be delivered, do you use UPS or the gov post service? Why choosing the equivalent of the post when it comes about your health? The private sector is always more efficient than the public.
@maximemeis111 "The private sector is always more efficient than the public."
So you want the police, fire and military to be privatised too? How about the actual government? Instead of voting, you could buy shares in the government and the shareholders could decide policy.
@MrSelidor7 Force is not a market. Force and market are opposites. In fact market is the anti-thesis of force. In a free-market, people trade by mutual consent for mutual benefits. There's no trade when somebody's gun is the final arbiter. So government should have the monopoly and force and let people do whatever they want as long as they don't use force or fraud against somebody else.
@maximemeis111. That is a completely different point. Try staying on topic but to answer your tangent, you seem to support a totalitarian government on some points but to give a complete free hand to the private sector on others.
You just seem scared of change or scared that the interpreted political beliefs of people who lived over 200 years ago might be lost.
@MrSelidor7 Well you told me that according to my view it meant that the police had to be privatized and I answered that you were mistaken, that force was not a market. Where do you get that I support a totalitarian gov? I said gov's only role is an army, a police and a court system. That's way less than what we have today. When I say gov should have the monopoly on force it means that you shouldn't have private police or private revenge.
@MrSelidor7 (continuing) What do you mean when you say that I'm scared of what people interpretation of :"life, liberty and the pursue of happiness" It can only mean one thing: that you have a right to your own life (not the life of others) and a right to the product of your life, that you should do whatever you want as long as you don't use force or fraud against others. What other interpretation can you have of those rights?
Or take some of the amount in Welfare, like the half a trillion. Or gasp the Medical that we spend.
Thunderf00t we spend ~1/3 on Military, ~1/3 on Welfare, and ~1/3 on Medicare (Both Welfare and Medicare are larger than the military budget). We already do what you ask but somehow there still is just not enough money. How we stick to the constitution which says you are to have a federal military and use the otehr 2/3 of the budget for what you propose?
those polititians should ask for AT LEAST 100 million each, 100 million x 500 = 5 billion, and that is still very little, so half a billion, that is 25 billion, STILL TOO LITTLE, so they should ask for 2 billion and be insulted with 0.5 billion or less..... THEY ARE TOO EASY TO BUY OUT.
Good post and everything, but people need to check again basic geography... AMERICA IS NOT A COUNTRY, there is either only one (North, Central and South America = America), or three, (North, Central and South). So people that hail from the U.S.A are U.S citizens, or north Americans if you want to use a broader term. Please pass it on to your friends and help combat ignorance, even if it is willful ignorance fueled by exaggerated patriotism.
@DaddyOD13 Hi, I'm aware of the basic association of the term, and as an industrialized nation I would at least expect that you people understood these basic facts. But the "american" rhetoric is empty... the U.S did not invent migration to a new location to improve life quality (american dream), or the striving for freedom (social contract), etc. That's why I cringe every time I hear those terms, because of the blatant exaggeration in these claims. Thanks for replying and take care.
If America cut its military budget in half, NATO, including America, would still account for 2/3 of the world's military budget. That's not including America's not-NATO allies, like Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, or India.
I really do not see how this video would make you say "amen brother". Only a couple of seconds has anything to do with religion (rick perry), are you saying those couple of seconds converted you to Christianity or something ridiculous?
@Dreamtumbler no. but let me ask you this, and I truly mean no disrespect (unless it is warranted), but why would you come to that conclusion or ask a question in such a way that you are leading more into it then was spoken? It is quite obvious that I liked the video and the message, i stated that i am an ATHEIST, and I also interjected a religious phrase that is also a common phrase to show agreement with others, meaning no religious connotations. I was being humorous and showing agreement.
"We spend more on our military than the next 16 countries combined. Let's cut it by half, so we're only spending as much as the next 8 countries combined, and see if anybody invades us."
You shouldn't invest the entire 500 billion into health care. There are many other important services which need increased government spending. For example Education: Schools are forgoing extracarriculars, art programs, laying off teachers, even going so far as removing friday from the school week, just to keep afloat. Why can't a portion of that 500 billion go towards restructuring and re-funding schools? What about more college grants? More welfare plans for the millions of unemployed?
The truly depressing thing isn't Americas health system-it's neither a new problem or one even recognised by the majority of Americans-it's the vandalism being wrecked on our own back in the UK.
The principle that health care should be allocated on the basis of need isn't quite as pink and fluffy as it sounds.A fit, healthy population benefits all levels of society.Decent primary health care will save our nation a fortune in the long run;but the desire to imitate the American model is intense.
@cursetogod I am taking it that was to be some type of insult to me as an individual....however i have no clue to your actual meaning because of your grammar. For someone with an account pic of a guy in a speedo, i would refrain from calling others homosexual...and as for living in the imaginary, i do recall stating i am an atheist. I hear that webster has an interesting book you might consider buying...called a dictionary..
YOU TALK SO MUCH CUCK BOY )PLEASE GO LEARN BETTER ENGLISH ..YOUR ENGLISH SUCKS=))
BUT HOMOSEXUAL =? WELL ASK FROM CATHOLIC PRIEST THE KNOW VERY WELL WHAT DAS MEAN HOMOSEXUAL ) AND NEVER FORGET JESUS DEAD AND YOU NEED TO OBEY ATHEIST RULE ))) DID I HURT YOU SWEETY CUCKBOY? HAHAH ITS MY JOB HONEY ..NOW GO LEARN BETTER ENGLISH )
@cursetogod your job? let me brake it down for you. you probably have no job, you're most likely a teenager living at home with his parents, and you have the maturity level of a thirteen year old (which if you are older then your teenage years, I pity your existence). as for your job, that would be a troll that wishes to faint power on the internet, that which you do not have in real life. your next reply will go unanswered as i am an adult and will not play that game.
Now that is a good healthcare concept. The attacking insurance companies won't change anything, but a few government employed doctors could actually create an impact. I'm running into that very problem, I have insurance coverage but the medical doctors are refusing to do what's needed.
Healthcare for all?! You must be kidding! We're Amurcins! Guns is way more fun than hospitals. Whoever saw a doctor blow stuff up on TV - now that's entertainment. Why don't y'all take yer snooty European "values" and go back where ya belong ya furrin' fruitcake! USA! USA! USA!
This is an interesting concept. I have often thought that our congress might be improved by enlarging it. My personal concept would be to eliminate geographic districts and simply give a seat to candidate who can garner say, 25,000 votes. This would mean that nearly everyone could be represented by someone who shares their views, rather than being drowned out by a majority in one area. Perhaps we could say that a state of certain size gets 100 representatives and the top 100 vote getters win.
Sorry to say, i do not think a bigger government would be the solution. Hell, that's pretty much the problem. What WOULD be the solution, is if the people decided to care enough to pay attention, and demand the wars be stopped, demand lower taxes to stimulate the economy, and Demand that crooked politicians be imprisoned for their acts against the American people.
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
@NUTCASE71733 At least under my plan Social Security and Medicare would be, albeit at a drastically reduced payout, secured both for this generation's elderly and their children, and their children to come, not like the current policy where the AARP piggishly takes whatever they can get while enslaving their children in debt to pay for it.
I have to say, tfoot- this video you made has put things into a perspective I had not considered. Very well done. It may have even changed my mind on the subject...it is certainly giving me something to think about.
@666or999 Consier that in context of the two following facts: 50% of American bankruptcies are due to medical costs and 75% of those who went bankrupt due to medical costs HAD health insurance.
@929myohmy The CBO historical tables had medicare and medicaid as 23% and the defence department as 19% But it seems the tables have been taken down. The NY times has a interactive chart of the budget that i'll PM you.
@NUTCASE71733 it either happens now or in 10-20 years when the country is finally bankrupt. I don't give a sh*t what happens to those people when we finally yank the feeding trough from under their snouts. They want their handouts and don't care if we utterly have no money to pay for it.
Great but down side is this nationalism that turns it insane because ppls believe that weapons are for secure ( sure it is more insane..) Problem is those criminals who abuse other peoples and those radical mofos who advises them to do so thru patriotic propaganda. Just look us history after Carter and count all individual criminals on covernments thru time.
Huge number of Reagans "helpers" got jail time. Sure some1 can say that it is not like that now but it is just uber naive over optimistics
@JohananRaatz It's not Obamacare, it's the seminal matter of balancing the budget. You can't spend $10 if you only take in $5 and you, as a government cannot continue for long if you spend $3.9 trillion when you only take in $2.5 trillion. Eventually the dollar will become so toxic no one will loan money to you because there is no trust of it being paid back. When that happens the US has not choice but to default on its loans and the economy is ruined. Repealing Obamacare alone won't do it.
@JohananRaatz It's a national decision within the country, a revolution of its citizens and policymakers to end excessive spending, pay off the debt, and restore fiscal sanity in this country. And its not gonna be easy and it will anger a lot of people in doing so, but we best take our lumps now and avert even more pain in the future when the economy collapses under the weight of this debt!
@cff121 Agreed, the people & leaches etc. who will oppose this frankly need -really badly- to be told to go fuck themselves. It's literally like a heroin addict being deprived of his fix.
And true, getting rid of Obamacare will take the edge off, but we need to cut back on a lot more than just Obamacare, hopefully axe off at least 40+% of the governments spending, and then simply freeze spending after that.
If you really want to save the US, you're partially correct - the state and federal governments are just too big and addicted to debt. So here's what you do. SLASH THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 1.9 TRILLION NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS MEANS SERIOUS CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY, THE DEPT OF DEFENSE AND MEDICARE, PLUS CROSS THE BOARD CUTS TO OTHER GOVT SERVICES. The idea is to have a balance budget plus be paying off the national debt at ~$500 billion per year. And do this for the next 25 years!
Actually, that's NOT the reason America is screwed. Even if you do chop the DoD budget (which is ~$670 billion for FY 2012, not your original statement of $1 trillion), you're still screwed if you don't curb the deficit. The country still goes into bankruptcy in 10-15 years. You're just replacing one big government program with another one and ignoring the debt addiction that is the rot of this nation!
Would like to know what hospital you was at where this happened? I have been treated at least 3 or 4 times in my 44 yrs with ZERO insurance and NEVER had a problem with being helped. They let me make payments, and one time completely wrote of my bill.
Knowingly (or not), intentionally (or not), you have just made the claim that good can be accomplished by giving centralized group of people the authority to exercise force against the general population.
You have further made the claim that you know what that good is.
That's one thing I've never understood about the self-proclaimed "greatest country on Earth"- the concept of welcome to America, but don't get sick! Or, in the land of opportunity, don't get sick because you have a great chance of being bankrupted by the treatment for your illness.
"Why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Languages or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."
The parallels between the military and healthcare are almost identical. One protects the nation from foreign invaders the other protects the body from foreign invaders. They are both public service and public safety issues. Preventing communicable diseases protects everyone. The idea that healthcare is only for those wealthy enough to afford it is the same as saying, "Only black people should be protected by the military because they are the most over represented in the service."
that's why i can't stand ron pauls stance on public health. he's one of those who screams socialism. it's weird most americans don't know how it works in other countries. public health is a wonderful thing
"Except Obama"?? Do you really believe this? I have some sad news for you: Under the Obama administration, the military spending of the US government went up, not down! And it's not just that Obama didn't succeed in reducing the military spending, no, he didn't even try!
Unfortunately Obama turned out to be a rather conservative Democrat who doesn't want to rock the boat or change the system. If anything his actions strengthened the corrupt system.
The fact that we don't have a national health service makes claims about our "freedoms" ring hollow. The right-wing money-grubbers literally do not care who dies - men, women or children - for the sake of maximizing their profits. These are sick people who need psychiatric treatment during their well-deserved incarceration for their evil acts here and around the world.
Thanks TF. I've been saying this for ages. In the years since 9/11 over 2.5mil Americans have died to medical error which would have been avoided by better funded facilities, better trained and well rested medical staff. By not redirecting the 1 trillion plus dollars spent on war since 9/11, the US government has killed more US citizens than any terrorist could dream of, making the ~3000 deaths on 9/11 pale in comparison.
Well you are not going to get this with Ron Paul. You want a true progressive president. I do not mean Obama because he is no liberal. Russ FIengold or somebody.
@jackcutdaniels Ah an empire would be much easier to run. Now does it bother you for moral reasons or because the UK isn't as big as an empire as it once was..?
Agree with cutting military. Disagree with spending the money on another government medical program- but I do agree that it is better than a lot of government programs. Only about 10-11% of medical treatment is free market in America, and even that is largely choked with expensive regulation and insurance.
I do have to say that in terms of size, the founders were well aware of the limitations of democracy and that was a large part of why the union was split into states. Each state was supposed to be its own sovereign entity bound together by the federal government, nowadays, for some reason, we always look tot he Federal level as though that is what's supposed to decide everything. Most people don't even know what's going on in their state capital. In that sense, the US. has lost its way.
An interesting point and I think there is waste that needs to be dealt with. We need tanks and soldiers, but plenty of money is wasted. How about cutting foreign aid and helping Americans with that or make more reforms to welfare. Our social programs need to be fixed. One his last point though the US doesn't have the worst healthcare, and many countries you'll dying waiting for care like in the UK where the government decides whether you get treated not you and your doctor.
@WhiteTrashBarbarian Thats because the goverment is paying the same way you decide if you buy what your kid wants/needs or not because you are paying. whats the difference between the government deciding not to pay and you not being able to pay for yourself? you'll go untreated in both cases.
@TheInternetWanderer Well after several documentaries on the topic and anecdotal evidence I'd say it's true. Canada has similar problems with their system don't they? We have enough socialist programs in this country. We'd be better with less as Europe is finding out.
So, why don't you do some research and than talk. Hell try having a thought of your own.
@TheInternetWanderer Actually by journalist, but let me guess your going to say they're all bought and paid for by the right? Last one I saw was by a libertarian.
So, you basically told me it was all a conspiracy and repeated my words back to me. Not much thinking going on over there is there? lol
The world can "laugh" but they all want to come here to live and work. You have to wonder why.
Don't worry I'm sure your government will keep taking care of everything for you.
@WhiteTrashBarbarian Can you give examples upon what the British government get involved in when it comes to serious healthcare? Because this is news to me. Not even doctors decide if you should be treated or not?! Where on earth did you get information like that from? I'm sorry, but I need to some evidence and examples as I tried looking this up and couldn't find anything upon the matter.
@Kittywhiskers1000 I don't have the space, but a quick search on Google found a number of arguments for both sides including things I didn't know. So maybe you should actually try doing so research next time. Insurance drives up costs and the government isn't the answer to keep them down. Look at any industry without government involvement, it thrives. Now look at medicare and care for veterans which the government mishandles. Changes need to be made, but not with bigger government.
@WhiteTrashBarbarian I did a quick search on google (I guess you overlooked that part of my comment) and nothing appeared to what you claimed- this is why I'm asking you. Perhaps a link within an inbox would suffice. But, I still highly doubt the government makes any serious medical decisions over doctors; that's quite an extreme statement.
@Kittywhiskers1000 The government controls the money if they run healthcare.They decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Hence they control who gets treated. I'm not walking you through this.
@WhiteTrashBarbarian The way you worded it earlier made it sound like people with serious life threatening conditions had to sit around and wait for the actual government to decide if they should be treated or not, despite what the doctors felt was needed to be done. What you're ACTUALLY saying isn't news to anyone. Meh, we still have better healthcare.
Yes, and how exactly do you propose we hold the anti-western powers at bay? Sure if Europe also pulled its weigh and had an army comparable with the US's maybe they could do that, but as it stands they need their high military budget.
@TheGoldenKing20 That's an interesting point that I think was left without any sort of address in this video, I think a more reasonable proposition would be to maybe cut it by 25% which is reasonable enough considering drones are becoming more efficient and will be cheaper in the long run, I think the EU should really strengthen their forces, my ideal type of military infrastructure would be UN based, however that will never happen as China and Russia always veto any sort of intervention.
I think it goes deep than the military being in charge. There are people in charge of both the military an the congress. They are called bankers. They print our money and run the whole show. Until you can either take the power back or convince them ppl are more important than money, nothing changes.
The sad truth about America is that people don't matter. We are no different than a disposable lighter. When it's used up, you throw it away. Wealth determines if you are important. The more money you have, the more you matter. Power decides if the law applies to you. He said we are callose. If we were, we would be nicer than we are.
What are you saying? Spend my money for other people's healthcare? You crazy? I'd rather spend it to kill foreigners. Plus the government can't do anything right, apart from war that is.
The problem with American is that it isn't a democracy and can never be a democracy while it relies on the few to represent the many. We have the technology to build a better system, yet we rely on this flawed, centuries old crap. In a world of rapid, secure communication, why do you need congress? Why do you need a president? Why should his voice be any louder than your own when making decisions for you?
@CuriousMoth It's s representative democracy, so it's a democracy all right. I don't know which form of government you prefer, but this kind seems to be the most stable. Direct democracy would not be that fast even with modern technology, especially in crisis siuations.
@EudaemonicGirl Since when is the current government even remotely fast to respond to crisis situations? And in case you hadn't noticed, your stable government is in the middle of a depression to rival the 1930s which it is greatly responsible for and which it only made worse by bailing out the banks instead of restricting them. The US spends way too much on the military, not nearly enough on things like health care, welfare and job support and taxation is an utterly biased mess.
@CuriousMoth I'm Swedish so it's not my government at all. I don't support the USA in their military actions or funding of it. I'm a libertarian (classical liberal) myself, so I do not see it as the state's obligation to be involved in financial and welfare matters. Going back to direct democracy, in the case of a crisis, everyone ciizen would have been involved in decision making by some sort of voting on the matter. If decisions are slow today, they would be evern slower in a direct democracy.
@EudaemonicGirl It'd be fairly easy to put a deadline on public voting for crises, the length of which could be voted on ahead of time, so a democratic decision open to all citizens could be reached very quickly.
The truth is we have more hospitals per capita than any other nation on Earth. And better quality care in those hospitals. Plus, even without socialized healthcare, every single person gets help and can NOT be turned away. We have literally tens of millions of people getting free, government funding healthcare, too.
That mother with a sick kid still got admitted and he got treated, didn't he?
@gvman3670 You're right! I had a kidney stone late one night, and was rushed to the ER for treatment. They sure did treat me on the spot, and even had me stay the night though. It's too bad about that 5600 dollar bill that I had though. Did I mention I am a college student? Yeah. Too bad.
@gvman3670 Yeah, and then that mother and her sick kid were so far into medical debt that they couldn't keep their home. In fact, because the mother feared this would happen, she put off her child's visit to the hospital until his health became so bad that the ER was thetr only choice.
This problem will be no longer a problem when greed will be limited. Put in the institution that one person can own only 100.000.000$ maximum and all will be solved. As long as we have greedy billion dollar bastards that care only about themselves there is no future but the downfall of America and mankind. We have all the laws that judge all the possible crimes but greed that is the root of all evil and all wars!
What I don't understand is that it is 2012. Why are we still acting like a bunch of monkeys salivating over money. When are we going to grow the f*** up?
I am an American and I love America but we are currently fucked up because of: War in Afghanistan, War in North Korea, poor health care, poor education, SOPA, PETA, PTC, anti-gay and jewish social structure, illegalization of marijuana, obesity, debt to China, lack of jobs, and current energy crysis. (and by the way, to all Americans who see this, isn't it interesting how we always complain that we don't have jobs, but we pay China to do the jobs that we can do to make our economy better?)
Even better, take that half a trillion and "spend it" in tax cuts for the bottom quartile of the population so that they have enough to pay for medical costs themselves. Or spend a quarter trillion on tax cuts and the other quarter on hospitals for the truly needy (parents, the disabled, the elderly etc.).
Just imagine all the hospitals America could have if they had taken your advice on April 6, 1917. America does have faults, I will never deny that. But, America's military has been by far an overwhelming force of good in the world!
@ahfa53 "But, America's military has been by far an overwhelming force of good in the world!"
WTF? Yeah imagine a world without such glorious contributions like agent orange or the dispersing of YOUR nuclear waste via depleted uranium bullets which caused yet another agent orange crime against humanity!
You should have definately better listened to Eisenhower´s words!
@RegioLunar If you read the entire comment...I stated that America does have faults. The point was what if America had continued to be an isolationist Republic starting on April 6th, 1917! What if the U.S. had never used it's military or even had built it up? I guarantee you America would certainly be a better place and that the rest of the world would have suffered for it!
@ahfa53 Eisenhower understood the malevevelent incentives an out of proportion military apperatus´d create. The exact content of this vid.
It´s naive at best to stick to "America's military ... overwhelming force of good in the world" and Jimy Carter tried to curb it until the patriotic zeal unhinged all rationale behind US foreign policy with Reagonimics.
After it became a buisness in the late 70s the insane incentives were tha main driver and covering up wrong doing became a doctrine
@RegioLunar you are correct, my arguing about 1917 on US military use ( in WWI and WWII) is not in the argument of Eisenhower's speech or this vid. But, would you also not have wanted the US to have the role it did in NATO in the 50's through 80's, NATO has not benefited the US anywhere near the good it has done for other countries. It just seems many want to bash the US military but, it is different when they are the ones receiving the help.
@ahfa53 As the US was/is clearly the dominant force within NATO the "other countries" were/are nothing more than mere vasalls.
Especially we in West Germany. Considering we were the main buffer towards the Warsaw Pact and still habour the biggest off US base (Ramstein) we granted the US a strategic advantage during the cold war period. Also Yurop remains the main trading partner of the US.
A complex issue however Yurop and Japan provided markets for US goods during the reconstruction->
Yet the elusive presence of a strong armamends base provided false incentives during the late 70s untill the present day. And i think this was what Eisenhower was affraid of. The false incentives and the resulting disasterous path.
I think Jimmy Carter´s successors should have choosen a different route to dilute this but instead they utilized the war machine to fully implement the US empire.
I´m not interested to "bash" the military per se but serious issues HAVE to be resolved.
@RegioLunar I think many Americans during the Cold War such as Reagan saw the arms race more ideological than what was needed for defense, which I guess only gives evidence to your and Eisenhower's argument. Thank you, I will think about. Halt die Ohren steif!
My favorite part of watching this video is the Ron Paul ad in the upper right hand side of my screen. I'm an anarchist, so I don't support Ron Paul, but the irony of a big government boob like Thunderf00t advertising for Ron Paul is just too sweet.
@Houshalter Why would the insurance industry be interested in keeping prices down if they are getting a cut of the overall costs? Why don't we have food insurance, everyone "has a right to affordable food", so why not have food insurance? Maybe because people would eat lobster and fillet everyday since eveyone eles is paying for it? I got a better idea, elliminate pyramid payment plans like insurance and watch the price of healthcare drop to what INDIVIDUALS using the service can pay.
@dlucas90 They don't get a cut. The more costly a service is the more the insurance company has to pay.
Food insurance doesn't make any sense because food isn't a risk. It's not like one out of every ten people is going to randomly get a massive food bill once in their life that they can't afford on their own.
@Houshalter They get a cut, they don't sell insurance as a non-profit business. The higher the healthcare costs the more the insurance companies charge their "customers". Doctors would rather set their prices according to what a pool of people can pay than what the indiduals using the service can afford.
I would be EXTREMLY interested in seeing how much money goes out of a insurance in claims compaired to what goes into it. Good luck finding such info.
@dlucas90 An insurance company that has lower payouts will make more profit, be able to lower it's prices to compete more, or both. They have a strong incentive.
@Houshalter In theory, but in theory the same can be said for govt. provided health insurance. The only difference is that politicians would "compete" to win elections by offering to sell the cheapest plan to the public. Taxes are govt. profits and private profits are cunsumer taxes. Insurance companies do compete by advertising, refusing to pay claims, and to see who can generate the highest profit, all of which is paid for by the "customers". Pay out of pocket and prices will plummet.
No TF, healthcare just isnt a state responsibility. It doesnt matter how many lives it saves. And if you are that merciful and care so much about people, I think you should call for all of your scummy Britain to be auctioned off and the money paid to the people of India for all that you plundered from us. Unlike you, America didnt become rich by colonialism and by the way, American charity built your scum nation out of rubble after WW-2. So dont blame America, blame your fellow British scum.
Why America is SCREWED ! Hypocrisy.. good old fashion doubles standards.. white picket fences... red and white checked table cloths.. covered bridges.. las vegas.. gambling.. drugs and vice.. have ya cake and eat it to.. greed. Americans want to live by the rule of law.. but its assumed, when they advanced to a high enough level (accumulated enough wealth) then they can do whatever they want.. whats keeping them enslaved is the hope that one day they to will be able to treat people like shit
@GoodByeKyle All it takes is money.. celebrity... in a word.. "popularity"
hell... ya can suck off bill clinton if all ya want is your name in the papers... then they'll invite ya to the MTV awards :D but nobody will talk to you :,(
America Loves prostitution... but they fucking hate whores >:(
There's a lot more politics involved
supercellodude 14 hours ago
2:26 It's one of the first time I must disagree with you Thunderfoot. If the US were still respecting individual rights of life, liberty, property and the pursue of happiness, the government would simply be an army, a police and a court system. Plus, if you have a letter that you really want to be delivered, do you use UPS or the gov post service? Why choosing the equivalent of the post when it comes about your health? The private sector is always more efficient than the public.
maximemeis111 1 day ago
@maximemeis111 "The private sector is always more efficient than the public."
So you want the police, fire and military to be privatised too? How about the actual government? Instead of voting, you could buy shares in the government and the shareholders could decide policy.
MrSelidor7 1 day ago
@MrSelidor7 Force is not a market. Force and market are opposites. In fact market is the anti-thesis of force. In a free-market, people trade by mutual consent for mutual benefits. There's no trade when somebody's gun is the final arbiter. So government should have the monopoly and force and let people do whatever they want as long as they don't use force or fraud against somebody else.
maximemeis111 23 hours ago
@maximemeis111. That is a completely different point. Try staying on topic but to answer your tangent, you seem to support a totalitarian government on some points but to give a complete free hand to the private sector on others.
You just seem scared of change or scared that the interpreted political beliefs of people who lived over 200 years ago might be lost.
MrSelidor7 22 hours ago
@MrSelidor7 Well you told me that according to my view it meant that the police had to be privatized and I answered that you were mistaken, that force was not a market. Where do you get that I support a totalitarian gov? I said gov's only role is an army, a police and a court system. That's way less than what we have today. When I say gov should have the monopoly on force it means that you shouldn't have private police or private revenge.
maximemeis111 22 hours ago
@MrSelidor7 (continuing) What do you mean when you say that I'm scared of what people interpretation of :"life, liberty and the pursue of happiness" It can only mean one thing: that you have a right to your own life (not the life of others) and a right to the product of your life, that you should do whatever you want as long as you don't use force or fraud against others. What other interpretation can you have of those rights?
maximemeis111 22 hours ago
Or take some of the amount in Welfare, like the half a trillion. Or gasp the Medical that we spend.
Thunderf00t we spend ~1/3 on Military, ~1/3 on Welfare, and ~1/3 on Medicare (Both Welfare and Medicare are larger than the military budget). We already do what you ask but somehow there still is just not enough money. How we stick to the constitution which says you are to have a federal military and use the otehr 2/3 of the budget for what you propose?
NimonGralock 1 day ago
those polititians should ask for AT LEAST 100 million each, 100 million x 500 = 5 billion, and that is still very little, so half a billion, that is 25 billion, STILL TOO LITTLE, so they should ask for 2 billion and be insulted with 0.5 billion or less..... THEY ARE TOO EASY TO BUY OUT.
doombybbr 1 day ago
i'd vote for you
Diosukekun 3 days ago
Tf00t, move to sweden, We've got free healthcare and 85 percent of us are atheists!
RawSwedishMeatball 3 days ago
@RawSwedishMeatball I wish people here in the U.S. were more like Swedes.
PlannedObsolescence 3 days ago
@RawSwedishMeatball You can't have him! We need him, and more like him to help move this country back from the brink of idiocy.
burkerow 2 days ago
@burkerow Haaha true that my friend, then I will let you keep him in good will
RawSwedishMeatball 2 days ago
Where is this guy? Epic mountains.
GhostfogND 3 days ago
Thunderf00t for US President
guicho0o 4 days ago
Good post and everything, but people need to check again basic geography... AMERICA IS NOT A COUNTRY, there is either only one (North, Central and South America = America), or three, (North, Central and South). So people that hail from the U.S.A are U.S citizens, or north Americans if you want to use a broader term. Please pass it on to your friends and help combat ignorance, even if it is willful ignorance fueled by exaggerated patriotism.
manuelricardogarcia 6 days ago
@manuelricardogarcia 'America' is commonly used to refer to the US (a country).
BenjaminGoose 5 days ago
@manuelricardogarcia "AMERICA IS NOT A COUNTRY"
I think we all know this. It's not so much willful ignorance as it's a colloquialism with roots in ethnocentrism.
burkerow 2 days ago
@manuelricardogarcia No offense, but I've heard your geography lesson way too many times on youtube.
Calling ourselves "American" has nothing to do with ignorance of geography or exaggerated patriotism.
It's just easier, and everybody knows what we mean.
DaddyOD13 1 day ago
@DaddyOD13 Hi, I'm aware of the basic association of the term, and as an industrialized nation I would at least expect that you people understood these basic facts. But the "american" rhetoric is empty... the U.S did not invent migration to a new location to improve life quality (american dream), or the striving for freedom (social contract), etc. That's why I cringe every time I hear those terms, because of the blatant exaggeration in these claims. Thanks for replying and take care.
manuelricardogarcia 1 day ago
If America cut its military budget in half, NATO, including America, would still account for 2/3 of the world's military budget. That's not including America's not-NATO allies, like Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, or India.
BrandonSchleifer 6 days ago
@TombTrainingCentral
I really do not see how this video would make you say "amen brother". Only a couple of seconds has anything to do with religion (rick perry), are you saying those couple of seconds converted you to Christianity or something ridiculous?
Dreamtumbler 1 week ago
@Dreamtumbler no. but let me ask you this, and I truly mean no disrespect (unless it is warranted), but why would you come to that conclusion or ask a question in such a way that you are leading more into it then was spoken? It is quite obvious that I liked the video and the message, i stated that i am an ATHEIST, and I also interjected a religious phrase that is also a common phrase to show agreement with others, meaning no religious connotations. I was being humorous and showing agreement.
TombTrainingCentral 1 week ago
ADULT WITH IMAGINARY FRIEND ARE =FUCKING STUPID USELESS )
JESUS DEAD AND YOU PEOPLE LICK MY ASSHOLE)
cursetogod 1 week ago
"We spend more on our military than the next 16 countries combined. Let's cut it by half, so we're only spending as much as the next 8 countries combined, and see if anybody invades us."
-Bill Maher
crazyunkle 1 week ago 29
You shouldn't invest the entire 500 billion into health care. There are many other important services which need increased government spending. For example Education: Schools are forgoing extracarriculars, art programs, laying off teachers, even going so far as removing friday from the school week, just to keep afloat. Why can't a portion of that 500 billion go towards restructuring and re-funding schools? What about more college grants? More welfare plans for the millions of unemployed?
TheBloodyloon 1 week ago
@TheBloodyloon i think it was just a example
TheAmazeingAnarchist 1 week ago
The truly depressing thing isn't Americas health system-it's neither a new problem or one even recognised by the majority of Americans-it's the vandalism being wrecked on our own back in the UK.
The principle that health care should be allocated on the basis of need isn't quite as pink and fluffy as it sounds.A fit, healthy population benefits all levels of society.Decent primary health care will save our nation a fortune in the long run;but the desire to imitate the American model is intense.
Flosailor 1 week ago
i happen to be an atheist, but after i watched this video, I have to say one thing...amen brother.
TombTrainingCentral 1 week ago 24
@TombTrainingCentral
YOU CANT BE ATHEIST CUZ YOU ARE GAY WHO LIVE WITH IMAGINARY YOU MOTHER FUCKER USELESS )
cursetogod 1 week ago
@cursetogod I am taking it that was to be some type of insult to me as an individual....however i have no clue to your actual meaning because of your grammar. For someone with an account pic of a guy in a speedo, i would refrain from calling others homosexual...and as for living in the imaginary, i do recall stating i am an atheist. I hear that webster has an interesting book you might consider buying...called a dictionary..
TombTrainingCentral 1 week ago
@TombTrainingCentral BLAB BLAB BLAB BLAB BLAB BAL BLA
YOU TALK SO MUCH CUCK BOY )PLEASE GO LEARN BETTER ENGLISH ..YOUR ENGLISH SUCKS=))
BUT HOMOSEXUAL =? WELL ASK FROM CATHOLIC PRIEST THE KNOW VERY WELL WHAT DAS MEAN HOMOSEXUAL ) AND NEVER FORGET JESUS DEAD AND YOU NEED TO OBEY ATHEIST RULE ))) DID I HURT YOU SWEETY CUCKBOY? HAHAH ITS MY JOB HONEY ..NOW GO LEARN BETTER ENGLISH )
cursetogod 1 week ago
@cursetogod your job? let me brake it down for you. you probably have no job, you're most likely a teenager living at home with his parents, and you have the maturity level of a thirteen year old (which if you are older then your teenage years, I pity your existence). as for your job, that would be a troll that wishes to faint power on the internet, that which you do not have in real life. your next reply will go unanswered as i am an adult and will not play that game.
TombTrainingCentral 1 week ago
@TombTrainingCentral BLAB BLAB BLAB BALB BLAB ABLBA
YOUR JOB? USELESS CUCK SUCKER? PLEASE GO LEARN BETTER ENGLISH ) YOUR ENGLISH SUCKS) YOU TALK (SO) MUCH . CALM THE FUCK DOWN.
GO TAKE SHOWER AND SMOKE WEED AND GET FUN )
cursetogod 1 week ago
from your lips to gods ears.....and possible some voters
sgf129 1 week ago
Now that is a good healthcare concept. The attacking insurance companies won't change anything, but a few government employed doctors could actually create an impact. I'm running into that very problem, I have insurance coverage but the medical doctors are refusing to do what's needed.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
Healthcare for all?! You must be kidding! We're Amurcins! Guns is way more fun than hospitals. Whoever saw a doctor blow stuff up on TV - now that's entertainment. Why don't y'all take yer snooty European "values" and go back where ya belong ya furrin' fruitcake! USA! USA! USA!
pdoylemi 1 week ago
@pdoylemi OP is American, You fool.
M0b1u5 1 week ago
This is an interesting concept. I have often thought that our congress might be improved by enlarging it. My personal concept would be to eliminate geographic districts and simply give a seat to candidate who can garner say, 25,000 votes. This would mean that nearly everyone could be represented by someone who shares their views, rather than being drowned out by a majority in one area. Perhaps we could say that a state of certain size gets 100 representatives and the top 100 vote getters win.
pdoylemi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm going to read "Fighting For our Health" now that i watched this.
dethrag 1 week ago
Sorry to say, i do not think a bigger government would be the solution. Hell, that's pretty much the problem. What WOULD be the solution, is if the people decided to care enough to pay attention, and demand the wars be stopped, demand lower taxes to stimulate the economy, and Demand that crooked politicians be imprisoned for their acts against the American people.
PsychologicalCynic 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
Antiks72 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
Antiks72 2 weeks ago
We should be taxing billionaires out of their private jets. Raise the capital gains tax gradually back up to where it was when Eisenhower was in office, and tell the rich traitors to take a hike.
Antiks72 2 weeks ago
@NUTCASE71733 At least under my plan Social Security and Medicare would be, albeit at a drastically reduced payout, secured both for this generation's elderly and their children, and their children to come, not like the current policy where the AARP piggishly takes whatever they can get while enslaving their children in debt to pay for it.
cff121 2 weeks ago
I have to say, tfoot- this video you made has put things into a perspective I had not considered. Very well done. It may have even changed my mind on the subject...it is certainly giving me something to think about.
chuckfaststrat 2 weeks ago
@chuckfaststrat America spends more on it's healthcare than it does on it's military. I honestly don't think he know what he's talking about.
666or999 2 weeks ago
@666or999 Consier that in context of the two following facts: 50% of American bankruptcies are due to medical costs and 75% of those who went bankrupt due to medical costs HAD health insurance.
Bobbiethejean 2 weeks ago
@666or999 Call for reference please.
929myohmy 1 week ago
@929myohmy The CBO historical tables had medicare and medicaid as 23% and the defence department as 19% But it seems the tables have been taken down. The NY times has a interactive chart of the budget that i'll PM you.
666or999 1 week ago
@NUTCASE71733 it either happens now or in 10-20 years when the country is finally bankrupt. I don't give a sh*t what happens to those people when we finally yank the feeding trough from under their snouts. They want their handouts and don't care if we utterly have no money to pay for it.
cff121 2 weeks ago
@NUTCASE71733 Thank you for your knee jerk demo of precisely what's wrong with the USA.
cff121 2 weeks ago
Great but down side is this nationalism that turns it insane because ppls believe that weapons are for secure ( sure it is more insane..) Problem is those criminals who abuse other peoples and those radical mofos who advises them to do so thru patriotic propaganda. Just look us history after Carter and count all individual criminals on covernments thru time.
Huge number of Reagans "helpers" got jail time. Sure some1 can say that it is not like that now but it is just uber naive over optimistics
koponenii 2 weeks ago
I'm aware of one other country where you need to pay up-front for medical help: Vietnam.
Not the most flattering comparison, is it?
ThinkingSpeck 2 weeks ago
If you don't do this the USA will end up like Greece in 10-20 years.
cff121 2 weeks ago
@cff121 That's actually 100% correct. The CBO says that if we don't overturn Obamacare, the US economy will be set on a "Greece-fire" by 2034.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz It's not Obamacare, it's the seminal matter of balancing the budget. You can't spend $10 if you only take in $5 and you, as a government cannot continue for long if you spend $3.9 trillion when you only take in $2.5 trillion. Eventually the dollar will become so toxic no one will loan money to you because there is no trust of it being paid back. When that happens the US has not choice but to default on its loans and the economy is ruined. Repealing Obamacare alone won't do it.
cff121 2 weeks ago
@cff121
Besides "obamacare" as idiots put it, was to try to alleviate people's woes regarding medical bills but Fox News turned it into a load of crap.
NUTCASE71733 2 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz It's a national decision within the country, a revolution of its citizens and policymakers to end excessive spending, pay off the debt, and restore fiscal sanity in this country. And its not gonna be easy and it will anger a lot of people in doing so, but we best take our lumps now and avert even more pain in the future when the economy collapses under the weight of this debt!
cff121 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cff121 Agreed, the people & leaches etc. who will oppose this frankly need -really badly- to be told to go fuck themselves. It's literally like a heroin addict being deprived of his fix.
And true, getting rid of Obamacare will take the edge off, but we need to cut back on a lot more than just Obamacare, hopefully axe off at least 40+% of the governments spending, and then simply freeze spending after that.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
If you really want to save the US, you're partially correct - the state and federal governments are just too big and addicted to debt. So here's what you do. SLASH THE FEDERAL BUDGET BY 1.9 TRILLION NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS MEANS SERIOUS CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY, THE DEPT OF DEFENSE AND MEDICARE, PLUS CROSS THE BOARD CUTS TO OTHER GOVT SERVICES. The idea is to have a balance budget plus be paying off the national debt at ~$500 billion per year. And do this for the next 25 years!
cff121 2 weeks ago
@cff121
Cut social security and medicare? What, and doom all senior citizens? Idiot.
NUTCASE71733 2 weeks ago
Actually, that's NOT the reason America is screwed. Even if you do chop the DoD budget (which is ~$670 billion for FY 2012, not your original statement of $1 trillion), you're still screwed if you don't curb the deficit. The country still goes into bankruptcy in 10-15 years. You're just replacing one big government program with another one and ignoring the debt addiction that is the rot of this nation!
cff121 2 weeks ago
Would like to know what hospital you was at where this happened? I have been treated at least 3 or 4 times in my 44 yrs with ZERO insurance and NEVER had a problem with being helped. They let me make payments, and one time completely wrote of my bill.
42lynchmob 2 weeks ago
maybe that was bin laden's plan all the time.
FeLiNe418 2 weeks ago
Knowingly (or not), intentionally (or not), you have just made the claim that good can be accomplished by giving centralized group of people the authority to exercise force against the general population.
You have further made the claim that you know what that good is.
Where's your evidence?
jeffiek 2 weeks ago
agree 100%. You're right on
likeminas 2 weeks ago
That's one thing I've never understood about the self-proclaimed "greatest country on Earth"- the concept of welcome to America, but don't get sick! Or, in the land of opportunity, don't get sick because you have a great chance of being bankrupted by the treatment for your illness.
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
EXCELLENT!
MichaelMassiah 2 weeks ago
Benjamin Franklin:
"Why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Languages or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."
vengencefrom1979 2 weeks ago
The parallels between the military and healthcare are almost identical. One protects the nation from foreign invaders the other protects the body from foreign invaders. They are both public service and public safety issues. Preventing communicable diseases protects everyone. The idea that healthcare is only for those wealthy enough to afford it is the same as saying, "Only black people should be protected by the military because they are the most over represented in the service."
jordypoe 2 weeks ago
that's why i can't stand ron pauls stance on public health. he's one of those who screams socialism. it's weird most americans don't know how it works in other countries. public health is a wonderful thing
fuzzjunky 3 weeks ago
It's sad it took a Brit to show me this bitter truth. Sad because none of our politicians have the guts to say this, except Obama I guess.
sociallogie 3 weeks ago
@sociallogie
"Except Obama"?? Do you really believe this? I have some sad news for you: Under the Obama administration, the military spending of the US government went up, not down! And it's not just that Obama didn't succeed in reducing the military spending, no, he didn't even try!
Unfortunately Obama turned out to be a rather conservative Democrat who doesn't want to rock the boat or change the system. If anything his actions strengthened the corrupt system.
Rawlsrocks 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ftlqed 3 weeks ago
If I could only choose how to distribute the world's resources and man's labor for everyone's own good then everything would be perfect.
comborye 3 weeks ago
It is beyond me how anyone could argue against this
hostyle0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact that we don't have a national health service makes claims about our "freedoms" ring hollow. The right-wing money-grubbers literally do not care who dies - men, women or children - for the sake of maximizing their profits. These are sick people who need psychiatric treatment during their well-deserved incarceration for their evil acts here and around the world.
hznfrst 3 weeks ago
What great “civilization” are you referring to?
TheInternetWanderer 3 weeks ago
Thanks TF. I've been saying this for ages. In the years since 9/11 over 2.5mil Americans have died to medical error which would have been avoided by better funded facilities, better trained and well rested medical staff. By not redirecting the 1 trillion plus dollars spent on war since 9/11, the US government has killed more US citizens than any terrorist could dream of, making the ~3000 deaths on 9/11 pale in comparison.
MrEmpathicus 3 weeks ago
Well you are not going to get this with Ron Paul. You want a true progressive president. I do not mean Obama because he is no liberal. Russ FIengold or somebody.
captcrais101 3 weeks ago
America is bent on imperialism.
jackcutdaniels 3 weeks ago
@jackcutdaniels Ah an empire would be much easier to run. Now does it bother you for moral reasons or because the UK isn't as big as an empire as it once was..?
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a-fellow-mans-viral-ebegging.blogspot.com/
AFellowMan1 3 weeks ago
One big problem. That makes total sense..and here in America we don't don't kindly to people that make sense.
iversonmatthew 3 weeks ago
Agree with cutting military. Disagree with spending the money on another government medical program- but I do agree that it is better than a lot of government programs. Only about 10-11% of medical treatment is free market in America, and even that is largely choked with expensive regulation and insurance.
mike000000000000able 3 weeks ago
screw military budget, solve domestic problems first, it's foreign policy costing the lives of citizens through acts of terrorism, not our freedom.
Zeldagigafan90210 3 weeks ago
I do have to say that in terms of size, the founders were well aware of the limitations of democracy and that was a large part of why the union was split into states. Each state was supposed to be its own sovereign entity bound together by the federal government, nowadays, for some reason, we always look tot he Federal level as though that is what's supposed to decide everything. Most people don't even know what's going on in their state capital. In that sense, the US. has lost its way.
HomicidalDonut 3 weeks ago
An interesting point and I think there is waste that needs to be dealt with. We need tanks and soldiers, but plenty of money is wasted. How about cutting foreign aid and helping Americans with that or make more reforms to welfare. Our social programs need to be fixed. One his last point though the US doesn't have the worst healthcare, and many countries you'll dying waiting for care like in the UK where the government decides whether you get treated not you and your doctor.
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian I agree with akk that you say, except for that last point about UK healthcare. :)
Dparkes26 3 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian Thats because the goverment is paying the same way you decide if you buy what your kid wants/needs or not because you are paying. whats the difference between the government deciding not to pay and you not being able to pay for yourself? you'll go untreated in both cases.
drcraigFAILS 3 weeks ago
@drcraigFAILS Well that was rambling...
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian - "in the UK where the government decides whether you get treated not you and your doctor." - BULLSHIT!
Just another boogieman story from the right.
TheInternetWanderer 3 weeks ago
@TheInternetWanderer Well after several documentaries on the topic and anecdotal evidence I'd say it's true. Canada has similar problems with their system don't they? We have enough socialist programs in this country. We'd be better with less as Europe is finding out.
So, why don't you do some research and than talk. Hell try having a thought of your own.
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian - "several documentaries" produced by the Republicans and the insurance companies no doubt.
Believe what you will, the rest of the world is laughing at you.
Give that original thought thing a chance too.
TheInternetWanderer 3 weeks ago
@TheInternetWanderer Actually by journalist, but let me guess your going to say they're all bought and paid for by the right? Last one I saw was by a libertarian.
So, you basically told me it was all a conspiracy and repeated my words back to me. Not much thinking going on over there is there? lol
The world can "laugh" but they all want to come here to live and work. You have to wonder why.
Don't worry I'm sure your government will keep taking care of everything for you.
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheInternetWanderer 3 weeks ago
@TheInternetWanderer I'm not, but it's a fact that the worlds best and brightest often come to the US to become Americans.
That's why your not here...lol
WhiteTrashBarbarian 3 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian Can you give examples upon what the British government get involved in when it comes to serious healthcare? Because this is news to me. Not even doctors decide if you should be treated or not?! Where on earth did you get information like that from? I'm sorry, but I need to some evidence and examples as I tried looking this up and couldn't find anything upon the matter.
Kittywhiskers1000 2 weeks ago
@Kittywhiskers1000 I don't have the space, but a quick search on Google found a number of arguments for both sides including things I didn't know. So maybe you should actually try doing so research next time. Insurance drives up costs and the government isn't the answer to keep them down. Look at any industry without government involvement, it thrives. Now look at medicare and care for veterans which the government mishandles. Changes need to be made, but not with bigger government.
WhiteTrashBarbarian 2 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian I did a quick search on google (I guess you overlooked that part of my comment) and nothing appeared to what you claimed- this is why I'm asking you. Perhaps a link within an inbox would suffice. But, I still highly doubt the government makes any serious medical decisions over doctors; that's quite an extreme statement.
Kittywhiskers1000 2 weeks ago
@Kittywhiskers1000 The government controls the money if they run healthcare.They decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Hence they control who gets treated. I'm not walking you through this.
WhiteTrashBarbarian 2 weeks ago
@WhiteTrashBarbarian The way you worded it earlier made it sound like people with serious life threatening conditions had to sit around and wait for the actual government to decide if they should be treated or not, despite what the doctors felt was needed to be done. What you're ACTUALLY saying isn't news to anyone. Meh, we still have better healthcare.
Kittywhiskers1000 2 weeks ago
It's a very fresh and convincing perspective - i love your work.
4andronicus 3 weeks ago
Yes, and how exactly do you propose we hold the anti-western powers at bay? Sure if Europe also pulled its weigh and had an army comparable with the US's maybe they could do that, but as it stands they need their high military budget.
TheGoldenKing20 3 weeks ago
@TheGoldenKing20 That's an interesting point that I think was left without any sort of address in this video, I think a more reasonable proposition would be to maybe cut it by 25% which is reasonable enough considering drones are becoming more efficient and will be cheaper in the long run, I think the EU should really strengthen their forces, my ideal type of military infrastructure would be UN based, however that will never happen as China and Russia always veto any sort of intervention.
TheAsymmetrical 3 weeks ago
I like your voice, Thunderf00t.
bozotheda 3 weeks ago
A side note that a lot of problems are allowed to progress because of a lack of funds and then have to be treated in a more expensive way.
I don't have the numbers to back to up but I'm willing to bet that something like this would kick back and give us a economic boost after that.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
All we do is make cures, just think what we could save dealing with more prevention.
faceshed 3 weeks ago
I think it goes deep than the military being in charge. There are people in charge of both the military an the congress. They are called bankers. They print our money and run the whole show. Until you can either take the power back or convince them ppl are more important than money, nothing changes.
shabido1 3 weeks ago
Thunderfoot; what you say is logical, sensible and humanitarian...that's why it WON'T be done.
DAngelo136 3 weeks ago
The sad truth about America is that people don't matter. We are no different than a disposable lighter. When it's used up, you throw it away. Wealth determines if you are important. The more money you have, the more you matter. Power decides if the law applies to you. He said we are callose. If we were, we would be nicer than we are.
glennheston 4 weeks ago
What are you saying? Spend my money for other people's healthcare? You crazy? I'd rather spend it to kill foreigners. Plus the government can't do anything right, apart from war that is.
PktMma 1 month ago
@PktMma They can't even get war right. It took what, 10 years to get basically nothing accomplished in Iraq?
RequiemFear 1 month ago
@PktMma
egocentrism *cough* + My healthcare is government regulated, and it is great!
Guitarvirtuoso666 3 weeks ago
@PktMma Reading your comment just makes me think that people like you are what's wrong with America
aaddaammize 3 weeks ago
@aaddaammize How so?
PktMma 3 weeks ago
@PktMma The simple fact that you'd rather use wealth to end lives rather than aid them.
aaddaammize 3 weeks ago
@aaddaammize Sarcasm is lost on you.
PktMma 3 weeks ago
BS - USA problems - 1. Fascist GOVT 2. Stupid & Arrogant slaves. 3. GOVT LEGAL BRIBES
mba2ceo 1 month ago
the problem with america is that people will vote
if they have a hamburger and the tv says they are kicking brown people butt, they have the american dream
the problem is ignorance and stupidity
religion is not the cause, its the symptom
mHalfLife 1 month ago
The problem with American is that it isn't a democracy and can never be a democracy while it relies on the few to represent the many. We have the technology to build a better system, yet we rely on this flawed, centuries old crap. In a world of rapid, secure communication, why do you need congress? Why do you need a president? Why should his voice be any louder than your own when making decisions for you?
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth The problem with America^ Curse my reordering of sentences ;)
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth It's s representative democracy, so it's a democracy all right. I don't know which form of government you prefer, but this kind seems to be the most stable. Direct democracy would not be that fast even with modern technology, especially in crisis siuations.
EudaemonicGirl 1 month ago
@EudaemonicGirl Since when is the current government even remotely fast to respond to crisis situations? And in case you hadn't noticed, your stable government is in the middle of a depression to rival the 1930s which it is greatly responsible for and which it only made worse by bailing out the banks instead of restricting them. The US spends way too much on the military, not nearly enough on things like health care, welfare and job support and taxation is an utterly biased mess.
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth I'm Swedish so it's not my government at all. I don't support the USA in their military actions or funding of it. I'm a libertarian (classical liberal) myself, so I do not see it as the state's obligation to be involved in financial and welfare matters. Going back to direct democracy, in the case of a crisis, everyone ciizen would have been involved in decision making by some sort of voting on the matter. If decisions are slow today, they would be evern slower in a direct democracy.
EudaemonicGirl 1 month ago
@EudaemonicGirl It'd be fairly easy to put a deadline on public voting for crises, the length of which could be voted on ahead of time, so a democratic decision open to all citizens could be reached very quickly.
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
The truth is we have more hospitals per capita than any other nation on Earth. And better quality care in those hospitals. Plus, even without socialized healthcare, every single person gets help and can NOT be turned away. We have literally tens of millions of people getting free, government funding healthcare, too.
That mother with a sick kid still got admitted and he got treated, didn't he?
I do agree with the rest, though.
gvman3670 1 month ago
@gvman3670 You're right! I had a kidney stone late one night, and was rushed to the ER for treatment. They sure did treat me on the spot, and even had me stay the night though. It's too bad about that 5600 dollar bill that I had though. Did I mention I am a college student? Yeah. Too bad.
the81stviewer 1 month ago
@gvman3670 Yeah, and then that mother and her sick kid were so far into medical debt that they couldn't keep their home. In fact, because the mother feared this would happen, she put off her child's visit to the hospital until his health became so bad that the ER was thetr only choice.
whatthehellpeople 1 month ago
I say this all the time, but whenever people say these things in public in America we are called "Looney Liberals" and ignored.
bodinian 1 month ago
This problem will be no longer a problem when greed will be limited. Put in the institution that one person can own only 100.000.000$ maximum and all will be solved. As long as we have greedy billion dollar bastards that care only about themselves there is no future but the downfall of America and mankind. We have all the laws that judge all the possible crimes but greed that is the root of all evil and all wars!
godthorviking 1 month ago
What I don't understand is that it is 2012. Why are we still acting like a bunch of monkeys salivating over money. When are we going to grow the f*** up?
NeilJunior12 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012
NeilJunior12 1 month ago
I am an American and I love America but we are currently fucked up because of: War in Afghanistan, War in North Korea, poor health care, poor education, SOPA, PETA, PTC, anti-gay and jewish social structure, illegalization of marijuana, obesity, debt to China, lack of jobs, and current energy crysis. (and by the way, to all Americans who see this, isn't it interesting how we always complain that we don't have jobs, but we pay China to do the jobs that we can do to make our economy better?)
93214919321491 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bring back Americas soul? No such thing as a soul, silly lol
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
Comment removed
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
Good video. Thumbs up.
databaseexpert 1 month ago
Forgot to mention that military isn't exactly focused on "defending"...
drupib 1 month ago
/watch?v=sp_umD7nvzs
360cbh 1 month ago
hmm
360cbh 1 month ago
Even better, take that half a trillion and "spend it" in tax cuts for the bottom quartile of the population so that they have enough to pay for medical costs themselves. Or spend a quarter trillion on tax cuts and the other quarter on hospitals for the truly needy (parents, the disabled, the elderly etc.).
WSWarthog 1 month ago
Its not that easy
ikevinwang 1 month ago
Just imagine all the hospitals America could have if they had taken your advice on April 6, 1917. America does have faults, I will never deny that. But, America's military has been by far an overwhelming force of good in the world!
ahfa53 1 month ago
@ahfa53 "But, America's military has been by far an overwhelming force of good in the world!"
WTF? Yeah imagine a world without such glorious contributions like agent orange or the dispersing of YOUR nuclear waste via depleted uranium bullets which caused yet another agent orange crime against humanity!
You should have definately better listened to Eisenhower´s words!
RegioLunar 1 month ago
@RegioLunar If you read the entire comment...I stated that America does have faults. The point was what if America had continued to be an isolationist Republic starting on April 6th, 1917! What if the U.S. had never used it's military or even had built it up? I guarantee you America would certainly be a better place and that the rest of the world would have suffered for it!
ahfa53 1 month ago
@ahfa53 Eisenhower understood the malevevelent incentives an out of proportion military apperatus´d create. The exact content of this vid.
It´s naive at best to stick to "America's military ... overwhelming force of good in the world" and Jimy Carter tried to curb it until the patriotic zeal unhinged all rationale behind US foreign policy with Reagonimics.
After it became a buisness in the late 70s the insane incentives were tha main driver and covering up wrong doing became a doctrine
RegioLunar 1 month ago
@RegioLunar you are correct, my arguing about 1917 on US military use ( in WWI and WWII) is not in the argument of Eisenhower's speech or this vid. But, would you also not have wanted the US to have the role it did in NATO in the 50's through 80's, NATO has not benefited the US anywhere near the good it has done for other countries. It just seems many want to bash the US military but, it is different when they are the ones receiving the help.
ahfa53 1 month ago
@ahfa53 As the US was/is clearly the dominant force within NATO the "other countries" were/are nothing more than mere vasalls.
Especially we in West Germany. Considering we were the main buffer towards the Warsaw Pact and still habour the biggest off US base (Ramstein) we granted the US a strategic advantage during the cold war period. Also Yurop remains the main trading partner of the US.
A complex issue however Yurop and Japan provided markets for US goods during the reconstruction->
RegioLunar 1 month ago
Yet the elusive presence of a strong armamends base provided false incentives during the late 70s untill the present day. And i think this was what Eisenhower was affraid of. The false incentives and the resulting disasterous path.
I think Jimmy Carter´s successors should have choosen a different route to dilute this but instead they utilized the war machine to fully implement the US empire.
I´m not interested to "bash" the military per se but serious issues HAVE to be resolved.
RegioLunar 1 month ago
@RegioLunar I think many Americans during the Cold War such as Reagan saw the arms race more ideological than what was needed for defense, which I guess only gives evidence to your and Eisenhower's argument. Thank you, I will think about. Halt die Ohren steif!
ahfa53 1 month ago
@ahfa53 Dude, i know sometimes i´m a little bit harsh but i´m in no way anti american.
I know better than you might think how it feels like to fall from grace. "Truth hurts but lies kill", right?
Blinded by pride and haughtyness as your guide is all too familiar to me.
RegioLunar 1 month ago
More Army Medicine. Hooah?
Gpk76 1 month ago
My favorite part of watching this video is the Ron Paul ad in the upper right hand side of my screen. I'm an anarchist, so I don't support Ron Paul, but the irony of a big government boob like Thunderf00t advertising for Ron Paul is just too sweet.
datalorez 1 month ago
@dlucas90 The insurance company has an incentive to keep prices down even if the individual doesn't. The government does not.
Yes insurance is a pool of money, but how much everyone pays into the pool is based entirely on their estimated risk of withdrawing from it.
Houshalter 2 months ago
@Houshalter Why would the insurance industry be interested in keeping prices down if they are getting a cut of the overall costs? Why don't we have food insurance, everyone "has a right to affordable food", so why not have food insurance? Maybe because people would eat lobster and fillet everyday since eveyone eles is paying for it? I got a better idea, elliminate pyramid payment plans like insurance and watch the price of healthcare drop to what INDIVIDUALS using the service can pay.
dlucas90 2 months ago
@dlucas90 They don't get a cut. The more costly a service is the more the insurance company has to pay.
Food insurance doesn't make any sense because food isn't a risk. It's not like one out of every ten people is going to randomly get a massive food bill once in their life that they can't afford on their own.
Houshalter 2 months ago
@Houshalter They get a cut, they don't sell insurance as a non-profit business. The higher the healthcare costs the more the insurance companies charge their "customers". Doctors would rather set their prices according to what a pool of people can pay than what the indiduals using the service can afford.
I would be EXTREMLY interested in seeing how much money goes out of a insurance in claims compaired to what goes into it. Good luck finding such info.
dlucas90 2 months ago
@dlucas90 An insurance company that has lower payouts will make more profit, be able to lower it's prices to compete more, or both. They have a strong incentive.
Houshalter 2 months ago
@Houshalter In theory, but in theory the same can be said for govt. provided health insurance. The only difference is that politicians would "compete" to win elections by offering to sell the cheapest plan to the public. Taxes are govt. profits and private profits are cunsumer taxes. Insurance companies do compete by advertising, refusing to pay claims, and to see who can generate the highest profit, all of which is paid for by the "customers". Pay out of pocket and prices will plummet.
dlucas90 2 months ago
No TF, healthcare just isnt a state responsibility. It doesnt matter how many lives it saves. And if you are that merciful and care so much about people, I think you should call for all of your scummy Britain to be auctioned off and the money paid to the people of India for all that you plundered from us. Unlike you, America didnt become rich by colonialism and by the way, American charity built your scum nation out of rubble after WW-2. So dont blame America, blame your fellow British scum.
Mrparrot73 2 months ago
Hell, fuck the hospital, put all that money into schools.
HimesInu 2 months ago
Why America is SCREWED ! Hypocrisy.. good old fashion doubles standards.. white picket fences... red and white checked table cloths.. covered bridges.. las vegas.. gambling.. drugs and vice.. have ya cake and eat it to.. greed. Americans want to live by the rule of law.. but its assumed, when they advanced to a high enough level (accumulated enough wealth) then they can do whatever they want.. whats keeping them enslaved is the hope that one day they to will be able to treat people like shit
GoodByeKyle 2 months ago
@GoodByeKyle All it takes is money.. celebrity... in a word.. "popularity"
hell... ya can suck off bill clinton if all ya want is your name in the papers... then they'll invite ya to the MTV awards :D but nobody will talk to you :,(
America Loves prostitution... but they fucking hate whores >:(
Hypocrisy :D
GoodByeKyle 2 months ago