|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jul 31, 2018 1:58:32 GMT
Listen I don't know nor care about Cernovich but he's one guy on the right compared to legions on the left who would do that. The right is just as bad as the left. Hell, I remember some institute conducting a poll about firing NFL players over kneeling and around 65% of conservatives said that they’re in favour of firing the players that kneel. There’s people without principles on both sides. Not that I trust polls anymore but I don't buy that also you really have to be deluded to think that people on the left (Christ I hate the left/right divide) have more integrity on this matter. On a lot of issues they try and chip away at the US constitution.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 31, 2018 2:39:12 GMT
Everyone at this point needs to stop acting like a total and complete moron in regards to these issues. It's like people are unhappy in his/her life so they have to make someone else miserable. It is not cool to dig up 10 year old tweets on someone and try to get him/her fired.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Jul 31, 2018 6:16:38 GMT
The right is just as bad as the left. Hell, I remember some institute conducting a poll about firing NFL players over kneeling and around 65% of conservatives said that they’re in favour of firing the players that kneel. There’s people without principles on both sides. Not that I trust polls anymore but I don't buy that also you really have to be deluded to think that people on the left (Christ I hate the left/right divide) have more integrity on this matter. On a lot of issues they try and chip away at the US constitution. I’m sure it’d be lower if every conservative in the country was polled, but still, it‘s one of the many examples that shows there’s hypocrites on both sides. I think around 15% of Democrats in that poll said they’d want the players to be fired too, which is a decently high number when you think about it. I hate using labels too. I honestly think it’s pretty equivalent on who has more integrity in regards to free speech. Like countjohn said, there’s groups on both sides that are against free speech and won’t stand up for someone if they’re on the ‘other side’. Those college campus videos of liberals are overblown and paint a fake picture of hysteria. People that think that’s an accurate representation of the left are naive (not saying you believe this, but I’ve seen a few people saying that this is a massive issue).
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 1, 2018 1:16:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 1, 2018 1:26:16 GMT
The Cernovich crowd is having a damn conniption.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 1, 2018 1:27:41 GMT
The right is just as bad as the left. Hell, I remember some institute conducting a poll about firing NFL players over kneeling and around 65% of conservatives said that they’re in favour of firing the players that kneel. There’s people without principles on both sides. Not that I trust polls anymore but I don't buy that also you really have to be deluded to think that people on the left (Christ I hate the left/right divide) have more integrity on this matter. On a lot of issues they try and chip away at the US constitution. what would you even trust lol, most "facts over feelings" rightwingers at least pretend to care about data and statistics even if they fundamentally misunderstand a lot of it also the constitution is a fuck and idc which party fucks with it, it needs to be completely re-drafted and decided upon
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 1, 2018 14:32:03 GMT
Not that I trust polls anymore but I don't buy that also you really have to be deluded to think that people on the left (Christ I hate the left/right divide) have more integrity on this matter. On a lot of issues they try and chip away at the US constitution. what would you even trust lol, most "facts over feelings" rightwingers at least pretend to care about data and statistics even if they fundamentally misunderstand a lot of it also the constitution is a fuck and idc which party fucks with it, it needs to be completely re-drafted and decided upon Why would I trust polls when the last election polls had Clinton winning and Britain to stay in the EU. Two massive referendums completely wrong.
I don't even know what you're on about for the second part.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Aug 1, 2018 15:02:29 GMT
Shapiro does a fine enough job discrediting himself without the need for out-of-context tweets. He's probably the smartest political commentator around. Just because he doesn't conform to your politics doesn't mean he's discredited. Far from it really. His latest video on the medicare for all study supported by the Koch brothers is one of many the reasons why he isn’t the smartest political commentator around. He came off as a partisan hack or just really naive on the whole topic. As did a lot of media that covered it, the so called ‘liberal’ media included. Although I massively disagree with him, he is one of the best debaters on the political scene. I don’t like Cenk, but I agree with him more than I agree with Shapiro. I think it’s clear that Shapiro won the debate between the two of them though. Which goes to show how good of a debater Shapiro is.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 1, 2018 15:55:42 GMT
I'm not that impressed with Ben. His debate style seems too hostile. It's the way he carries himself.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 1, 2018 16:10:27 GMT
This thread has officially gone to
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 1, 2018 16:53:47 GMT
I don't really give a fuck if Gunn is re hired or remains fired. Its not even like Gunn is all that imo . A lot of these MCU fanboys are acting like he's Christopher fucking Nolan or something . "I have famously huge turds" - Drax GotG Vol 2 ( yeah thats quality writing right there )
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 1, 2018 17:00:53 GMT
He's probably the smartest political commentator around. Just because he doesn't conform to your politics doesn't mean he's discredited. Far from it really. His latest video on the medicare for all study supported by the Koch brothers is one of many the reasons why he isn’t the smartest political commentator around. He came off as a partisan hack or just really naive on the whole topic. As did a lot of media that covered it, the so called ‘liberal’ media included. Although I massively disagree with him, he is one of the best debaters on the political scene. I don’t like Cenk, but I agree with him more than I agree with Shapiro. I think it’s clear that Shapiro won the debate between the two of them though. Which goes to show how good of a debater Shapiro is. He makes the video because he agrees with it and why the free markets work far better than government run bollocks. So what if he gets paid for it, it's called having an opinion. You sound like the partisan hack siding with that dumb cunt Cenk Uygur.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 1, 2018 17:02:40 GMT
I'm not that impressed with Ben. His debate style seems too hostile. It's the way he carries himself. He only gets hostile if you get hostile. He's very courteous when spoken to with decency.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Aug 1, 2018 17:34:43 GMT
His latest video on the medicare for all study supported by the Koch brothers is one of many the reasons why he isn’t the smartest political commentator around. He came off as a partisan hack or just really naive on the whole topic. As did a lot of media that covered it, the so called ‘liberal’ media included. Although I massively disagree with him, he is one of the best debaters on the political scene. I don’t like Cenk, but I agree with him more than I agree with Shapiro. I think it’s clear that Shapiro won the debate between the two of them though. Which goes to show how good of a debater Shapiro is. He makes the video because he agrees with it and why the free markets work far better than government run bollocks. So what if he gets paid for it, it's called having an opinion. You sound like the partisan hack siding with that dumb cunt Cenk Uygur. He was dishonest in the video. He argued that the study proved Bernie’s idea of a universal healthcare system is wrong because it showed that America would have to pay 32 trillion over 10 years which is ‘way too much and that they can’t afford yet’. Surprisingly though, he somehow forgot to bring up the fact that the study proved that a medicare for all system would actually save over 2 trillion dollars. Then he went on to say how Bernie was arguing against the study, when in reality Bernie has been publishing this study everywhere and using it to prove his point. He even thanked the Koch brothers. This is just in a 10 minute video too. Over the years, he’s said quite a bit of dumb shit about healthcare. All the statistics and studies show that a universal healthcare system is better than a free market system. To argue for a free market system is to argue against the facts. Why is it that in America, more people want to change their system to a medicare for all system. Yet in countries that have a medicare for all system, the majority of people love it. Even when conservative governments get in they won’t even think of changing their system as it would be very unpopular. What? I literally just said that I don’t like Cenk and that he lost the debate to Shapiro. How does that make me a partisan hack?
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 1, 2018 17:48:16 GMT
I don't really give a fuck if Gunn is re hired or remains fired. Its not even like Gunn is all that imo . A lot of these MCU fanboys are acting like he's Christopher fucking Nolan or something . "I have famously huge turds" - Drax GotG Vol 2 ( yeah thats quality writing right there ) GOTG 2 just straight up sucked. I'm still fairly lost on the Yondu love.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 1, 2018 17:52:16 GMT
He makes the video because he agrees with it and why the free markets work far better than government run bollocks. So what if he gets paid for it, it's called having an opinion. You sound like the partisan hack siding with that dumb cunt Cenk Uygur. He was dishonest in the video. He argued that the study proved Bernie’s idea of a universal healthcare system is wrong because it showed that America would have to pay 32 trillion over 10 years which is ‘way too much and that they can’t afford yet’. Surprisingly though, he somehow forgot to bring up the fact that the study proved that a medicare for all system would actually save over 2 trillion dollars. Then he went on to say how Bernie was arguing against the study, when in reality Bernie has been publishing this study everywhere and using it to prove his point. He even thanked the Koch brothers. This is just in a 10 minute video too. Over the years, he’s said quite a bit of dumb shit about healthcare. All the statistics and studies show that a universal healthcare system is better than a free market system. To argue for a free market system is to argue against the facts. Why is it that in America, more people want to change their system to a medicare for all system. Yet in countries that have a medicare for all system, the majority of people love it. Even when conservative governments get in they won’t even think of changing their system as it would be very unpopular. What? I literally just said that I don’t like Cenk and that he lost the debate to Shapiro. How does that make me a partisan hack? Bullshit you'd save 2 trillion. I've heard that figure thrown around before and it's been disproven time and time again. Also you don't take into account the economic ramifications it would cause just to raise the money in the first place. You also know the American healthcare system is far from a free market and that there are no free healthcare markets in the world save for black markets and these universal healthcare systems that get analyzed by health organizations never talk about the quality of healthcare but how many people get covered. Flawed system if you ask me. These conservative governments like the Tories in Britain won't touch it because the public think it's sacrosanct and want everything for free not knowing that the NHS has been constantly criticized for being underfunded my entire life even when they raise enough money. It's complete horseshit that universal systems works.
Let me ask you a question. Why don't the British government offer free food like they do free healthcare?
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Aug 1, 2018 19:18:51 GMT
He was dishonest in the video. He argued that the study proved Bernie’s idea of a universal healthcare system is wrong because it showed that America would have to pay 32 trillion over 10 years which is ‘way too much and that they can’t afford yet’. Surprisingly though, he somehow forgot to bring up the fact that the study proved that a medicare for all system would actually save over 2 trillion dollars. Then he went on to say how Bernie was arguing against the study, when in reality Bernie has been publishing this study everywhere and using it to prove his point. He even thanked the Koch brothers. This is just in a 10 minute video too. Over the years, he’s said quite a bit of dumb shit about healthcare. All the statistics and studies show that a universal healthcare system is better than a free market system. To argue for a free market system is to argue against the facts. Why is it that in America, more people want to change their system to a medicare for all system. Yet in countries that have a medicare for all system, the majority of people love it. Even when conservative governments get in they won’t even think of changing their system as it would be very unpopular. What? I literally just said that I don’t like Cenk and that he lost the debate to Shapiro. How does that make me a partisan hack? Bullshit you'd save 2 trillion. I've heard that figure thrown around before and it's been disproven time and time again. Also you don't take into account the economic ramifications it would cause just to raise the money in the first place. You also know the American healthcare system is far from a free market and that there are no free healthcare markets in the world save for black markets and these universal healthcare systems that get analyzed by health organizations never talk about the quality of healthcare but how many people get covered. Flawed system if you ask me. These conservative governments like the Tories in Britain won't touch it because the public think it's sacrosanct and want everything for free not knowing that the NHS has been constantly criticized for being underfunded my entire life even when they raise enough money. It's complete horseshit that universal systems works.
Let me ask you a question. Why don't the British government offer free food like they do free healthcare?
You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Read this: www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-reportIt's not a surprise that universal healthcare would be cost effective. If you ready any of the non partisan studies that rank healthcare systems, which you clearly haven't, you'd already know that a universal healthcare system is cheaper. That figure literally comes from a conservative think tank, so you can argue that if anything, that'd be the lowest you'd save. Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment. I know Americas system isn't a free market system. Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Efficiency could also decline since the providers would still be able to benefit from demand even if quality remains low. The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. Non partisan studies have shown this. They do analyze the quality of healthcare. They analyze multiple factors. I don't think you actually read through a study such as the World Health Organization before. Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want? Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? Maybe they don't mind having their taxes actually go to something that improves other peoples quality of life. Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street. Just a thought. As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems, aka a healthcare system. As well as thinking other systems work better as a capitalist system, aka car manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 1, 2018 19:33:20 GMT
This thread needs to be moved to the politics board.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 1, 2018 19:33:57 GMT
what would you even trust lol, most "facts over feelings" rightwingers at least pretend to care about data and statistics even if they fundamentally misunderstand a lot of it also the constitution is a fuck and idc which party fucks with it, it needs to be completely re-drafted and decided upon Why would I trust polls when the last election polls had Clinton winning and Britain to stay in the EU. Two massive referendums completely wrong.
I don't even know what you're on about for the second part.
why trust polls when they're wrong sometimes? well, what better do we have to go off of? raw intuition? election polls put clinton winning at around 75%, and staying even lower than that. even still i mean, those polls weren't "wrong" in the sense that you are suggesting; it was indeed true that the people surveyed suggested a clinton victory and britain remaining, the data wasn't just made up. they asked a large amount of people and made a prediction as best they could off of that, which has been the foundation of the statistical method for the entirety of modern statistics.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 1, 2018 20:13:08 GMT
Bullshit you'd save 2 trillion. I've heard that figure thrown around before and it's been disproven time and time again. Also you don't take into account the economic ramifications it would cause just to raise the money in the first place. You also know the American healthcare system is far from a free market and that there are no free healthcare markets in the world save for black markets and these universal healthcare systems that get analyzed by health organizations never talk about the quality of healthcare but how many people get covered. Flawed system if you ask me. These conservative governments like the Tories in Britain won't touch it because the public think it's sacrosanct and want everything for free not knowing that the NHS has been constantly criticized for being underfunded my entire life even when they raise enough money. It's complete horseshit that universal systems works.
Let me ask you a question. Why don't the British government offer free food like they do free healthcare?
You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Read this: www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-reportIt's not a surprise that universal healthcare would be cost effective. If you ready any of the non partisan studies that rank healthcare systems, which you clearly haven't, you'd already know that a universal healthcare system is cheaper. That figure literally comes from a conservative think tank, so you can argue that if anything, that'd be the lowest you'd save. Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment. I know Americas system isn't a free market system. Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Efficiency could also decline since the providers would still be able to benefit from demand even if quality remains low. The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. Non partisan studies have shown this. They do analyze the quality of healthcare. They analyze multiple factors. I don't think you actually read through a study such as the World Health Organization before. Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want? Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? Maybe they don't mind having their taxes actually go to something that improves other peoples quality of life. Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street. Just a thought. As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems, aka a healthcare system. As well as thinking other systems work better as a capitalist system, aka car manufacturers. You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Don't make stupid assumptions like that you fatuous little shit.
As for that report it neglects to mention that no doctor would ever work in that system, it mentions lowering costs of drugs when it has no zero control over that. It also tries to distinguish between federal spending and overall healthcare spending and that's how it gets the 2 trillion yet it doesn't take into account factors like choices from patients and doctors. It also doesn't suggest it's cost effective but better than the current American system that actually spends more of it's percentage of GDP than Britain does on healthcare.
Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment.
Tell that to the Brits working class whose welfare state gets bigger every year and very little social mobility.
Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Well yeah that's the point of having insurance if the procedure is rare and difficult.
The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. You keep saying this but never prove or cite any real facts but stupid articles. Why is the NHS always on the brink of collapse? Why did Canada's Supreme Court rule that using private doctors was a human right? The WHO's rankings has Cuba right behind America which goes to show how bullshit that organization is. My brother was in Cuba and he's a big socialist lefty like you and he was shocked by how bad it was in some of those clinics.
Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? You can't say how bad and corrupt the Kochs are then praise them and their organization for releasing data that goes against their interest. Pick one. Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want?
What are you babbling on about? I never said anything like that. I'm saying these people are idiots and overzealous about a system set up because Winston Churchill became too weak to fight it.
Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? No they're idiots like you and no Britain's health service doesn't work.
Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Well that was a hell of a desperate right turn. You do know Britain funds and arms a lot of countries that do a lot of bombing like Saudi Arabia?
Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street.
You don't understand my point or the free market at all do you. The bailouts are a left wing position and they were guaranteed by the government to make sure people weren't refused a mortgage based on bad credit scoring. The free market would have no guarantee and no bailout.
As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. No you didn't at all. Answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee free food for people?
It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems Any system that is such a change from the norm is radical by definition.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Aug 1, 2018 22:04:28 GMT
You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Read this: www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-reportIt's not a surprise that universal healthcare would be cost effective. If you ready any of the non partisan studies that rank healthcare systems, which you clearly haven't, you'd already know that a universal healthcare system is cheaper. That figure literally comes from a conservative think tank, so you can argue that if anything, that'd be the lowest you'd save. Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment. I know Americas system isn't a free market system. Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Efficiency could also decline since the providers would still be able to benefit from demand even if quality remains low. The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. Non partisan studies have shown this. They do analyze the quality of healthcare. They analyze multiple factors. I don't think you actually read through a study such as the World Health Organization before. Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want? Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? Maybe they don't mind having their taxes actually go to something that improves other peoples quality of life. Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street. Just a thought. As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems, aka a healthcare system. As well as thinking other systems work better as a capitalist system, aka car manufacturers. You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Don't make stupid assumptions like that you fatuous little shit.
As for that report it neglects to mention that no doctor would ever work in that system, it mentions lowering costs of drugs when it has no zero control over that. It also tries to distinguish between federal spending and overall healthcare spending and that's how it gets the 2 trillion yet it doesn't take into account factors like choices from patients and doctors. It also doesn't suggest it's cost effective but better than the current American system that actually spends more of it's percentage of GDP than Britain does on healthcare.
Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment.
Tell that to the Brits working class whose welfare state gets bigger every year and very little social mobility.
Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Well yeah that's the point of having insurance if the procedure is rare and difficult.
The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. You keep saying this but never prove or cite any real facts but stupid articles. Why is the NHS always on the brink of collapse? Why did Canada's Supreme Court rule that using private doctors was a human right? The WHO's rankings has Cuba right behind America which goes to show how bullshit that organization is. My brother was in Cuba and he's a big socialist lefty like you and he was shocked by how bad it was in some of those clinics.
Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? You can't say how bad and corrupt the Kochs are then praise them and their organization for releasing data that goes against their interest. Pick one. Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want?
What are you babbling on about? I never said anything like that. I'm saying these people are idiots and overzealous about a system set up because Winston Churchill became too weak to fight it.
Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? No they're idiots like you and no Britain's health service doesn't work.
Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Well that was a hell of a desperate right turn. You do know Britain funds and arms a lot of countries that do a lot of bombing like Saudi Arabia?
Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street.
You don't understand my point or the free market at all do you. The bailouts are a left wing position and they were guaranteed by the government to make sure people weren't refused a mortgage based on bad credit scoring. The free market would have no guarantee and no bailout.
As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. No you didn't at all. Answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee free food for people?
It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems Any system that is such a change from the norm is radical by definition.
Keep tossing them insults my way. I get a good laugh when people act tough over the internet during an argument. Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. This article goes through somewhat detailed reasoning why it's more cost effective: www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.amp.htmlMeanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. They'll reject anybody whose high risk so they can make more profit. Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. They're not articles. They're comprehensive studies by experts that have spent years dealing with these issues. Non partisan groups that have no dog in the fight. Those studies all lead to the same outcome too. Again, I'm not socialist. Man, I'd hate if your brother went to America. Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad. My family is actually pretty conservative and can't believe how horrible the American system is and say how lucky we are. I didn't bother to bring that up though since it's a small sample size, but since you used your brother as an argument, guess I'll use them. Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one. “Tories in Britain won’t touch it because the public think it’s sacrosanct and free..” Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Again, every single country that has a universal healthcare system has a vast majority of people that agree with the system. Yet in America, a majority of people disagree with their system. I guess even though we don’t have to fill out papers for private insurances, worry about bankruptcy, having family members that die because they have no coverage, we’re the idiots because we’re actually happy when we can walk in and out of a doctors office or hospital without having a dollar in our wallet. If the universal system is as bad as what you’re making it out to be, there’d be countries changing their systems and majority of citizens rebelling against it. I wonder why we don’t see that. That I do. It’s not a desperate turn at all. Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. More of a rant if anything. I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 2, 2018 16:48:26 GMT
You haven't read any of the reports, have you? Don't make stupid assumptions like that you fatuous little shit.
As for that report it neglects to mention that no doctor would ever work in that system, it mentions lowering costs of drugs when it has no zero control over that. It also tries to distinguish between federal spending and overall healthcare spending and that's how it gets the 2 trillion yet it doesn't take into account factors like choices from patients and doctors. It also doesn't suggest it's cost effective but better than the current American system that actually spends more of it's percentage of GDP than Britain does on healthcare.
Middle income and especially lower income earners would be saving money since although they'd have to spend a little more on tax to pay for a universal system, the tax increase wouldn't be nearly as much as what they pay on their insurance and premiums at the moment.
Tell that to the Brits working class whose welfare state gets bigger every year and very little social mobility.
Experts have already said that although there's potential benefits of a free market system, it doesn't guarantee cost effectiveness and quality of healthcare. Well yeah that's the point of having insurance if the procedure is rare and difficult.
The universal system has been proven to be the best system thus far. You keep saying this but never prove or cite any real facts but stupid articles. Why is the NHS always on the brink of collapse? Why did Canada's Supreme Court rule that using private doctors was a human right? The WHO's rankings has Cuba right behind America which goes to show how bullshit that organization is. My brother was in Cuba and he's a big socialist lefty like you and he was shocked by how bad it was in some of those clinics.
Yet you'll listen to people like Shapiro that have foundations that get funded by people like the Koch brothers which then go on to fund his college tours. You don't see anything wrong with that? You can't say how bad and corrupt the Kochs are then praise them and their organization for releasing data that goes against their interest. Pick one. Are you seriously trying to argue that you know what people want more than they know what they want?
What are you babbling on about? I never said anything like that. I'm saying these people are idiots and overzealous about a system set up because Winston Churchill became too weak to fight it.
Maybe people don't want to get rid of a universal system because it actually works? No they're idiots like you and no Britain's health service doesn't work.
Maybe they'd rather see people in their own country not become bankrupt from hospital bills than see their taxes go to bombs which kill innocent lives in other countries and destabilizing them. Well that was a hell of a desperate right turn. You do know Britain funds and arms a lot of countries that do a lot of bombing like Saudi Arabia?
Maybe they’d rather see people in their country not die from not having healthcare coverage rather than bailing out Wall Street.
You don't understand my point or the free market at all do you. The bailouts are a left wing position and they were guaranteed by the government to make sure people weren't refused a mortgage based on bad credit scoring. The free market would have no guarantee and no bailout.
As for your last point, I think I’ve already explained so above. No you didn't at all. Answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee free food for people?
It's not radical to think that some systems work better as socialist systems Any system that is such a change from the norm is radical by definition.
Keep tossing them insults my way. I get a good laugh when people act tough over the internet during an argument. Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. This article goes through somewhat detailed reasoning why it's more cost effective: www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.amp.htmlMeanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. They'll reject anybody whose high risk so they can make more profit. Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. They're not articles. They're comprehensive studies by experts that have spent years dealing with these issues. Non partisan groups that have no dog in the fight. Those studies all lead to the same outcome too. Again, I'm not socialist. Man, I'd hate if your brother went to America. Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad. My family is actually pretty conservative and can't believe how horrible the American system is and say how lucky we are. I didn't bother to bring that up though since it's a small sample size, but since you used your brother as an argument, guess I'll use them. Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one. “Tories in Britain won’t touch it because the public think it’s sacrosanct and free..” Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Again, every single country that has a universal healthcare system has a vast majority of people that agree with the system. Yet in America, a majority of people disagree with their system. I guess even though we don’t have to fill out papers for private insurances, worry about bankruptcy, having family members that die because they have no coverage, we’re the idiots because we’re actually happy when we can walk in and out of a doctors office or hospital without having a dollar in our wallet. If the universal system is as bad as what you’re making it out to be, there’d be countries changing their systems and majority of citizens rebelling against it. I wonder why we don’t see that. That I do. It’s not a desperate turn at all. Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. More of a rant if anything. I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical.
Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. You just posted an article saying moving towards universal healthcare would save 2 trillion yet you doubt what I said. You can't seem to keep up with your own logic.
Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system
No they're not. Most of the best doctors in the world go where the money is. It's like any other industry. That's like saying Lionel Messi would be happy to play for a no name Argentinian club and not get paid.
a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. Why would it? If the government are guaranteeing the sale of drugs then the drug companies can charge whatever they want. The only way to stop that is nationalize the drug companies and set price controls. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a bad idea.
Meanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. Except Norway has had stagnant growth for many years now. Denmark has had to vote in more conservatives in the last few years to stop the rot. Sweden was at one point one of the 5 richest countries in the world per capita and since they've gone the social democracy road they've dropped big time. Also all these countries don't have to spend so much on defense since the US foots the bill for most of that.
So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. Yes. It's not a charity. It's a guaranteed loss for the insurance company. It's like selling someone fire insurance on your house after it's burned down.
Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Well I have insurance because I'm not stupid and if I was I wouldn't complain to the government for own stupidity.
Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. You do realize it wasn't a free market before Obama. The US has been spending this amount of money in healthcare for decades. You also know Obamacare if basically subsidizing the insurance companies right. They can charge what they want. Even Bernie Sanders said this wasn't a good system. It's worse than universal healthcare.
Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. Again I'm not a fan of the American system. It's not a real private system.
I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad.
Actually we went to the States a few years ago and on the second day we were there he had to be taken to hospital. Luckily he had insurance. He said his care was very good. I doubt he'd say the same thing for Cuba, Canada and Britain.
Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one.
You know full well they could have buried that study and they didn't. You did praise them. I personally couldn't give two shits about them.
Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Yes people never know what's good for them. A lot of people in the Muslim world think it's good to live in a Sharia system. There are still a lot of communists in Russia and they're the second biggest party. It really isn't. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or effective.
Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. The reason the West supports regimes like Saudi Arabia is because they don't then the likes of Russia or China will step in and fill the vacuum. Unlike the States, guys like Putin and Jinping would do anything for more power. You also forget the energy the States need to keep their citizens from starving.
I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. No Sanders just wants to tax them into oblivion or enough for them to leave and no this is not about Obama or Bush or Sanders. It's a left wing position to guarantee the banks solvency if they fail since the money comes from the taxpayers. The banks didn't collapse because of deregulation or them betting. They betted on the collapse of the housing market. The housing market collapsed because the mortgages given out were shit and they were shit because of a law that made the banks not refuse a mortgage to someone with bad credit ratings. It didn't matter to the banks because they knew they'd be bailed out.
I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? No answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee everyone free food?
Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical. So what if other countries do it or not. There are many dictatorships in the world and for most of human history it's been dictatorship yet somehow I think you'd agree if the States went towards dictatorship you'd agree it was radical.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 2, 2018 17:32:44 GMT
Okay, this has gone way passed off the topic-at-hand here...
Let's bring it back to these key words. James Gunn. Disney. Marvel. GOTG.
If your post does not contain those words in a manner relevant to the topic at hand, then you are a naughty Nelly.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 2, 2018 18:11:46 GMT
Okay, this has gone way passed off the topic-at-hand here... Let's bring it back to these key words. James Gunn. Disney. Marvel. GOTG. If your post does not contain those words in a manner relevant to the topic at hand, then you are a naughty Nelly. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the Disney of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the Marvel of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of GOTG children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I Gunn the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 2, 2018 18:30:15 GMT
Okay, this has gone way passed off the topic-at-hand here... Let's bring it back to these key words. James Gunn. Disney. Marvel. GOTG. If your post does not contain those words in a manner relevant to the topic at hand, then you are a naughty Nelly. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the Disney of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the Marvel of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of GOTG children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I Gunn the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."
|
|