Government Shutdown Solution. . we' ll MAKE nun awn GOVERNMENT BREE iia as ii. I think it'd be cool if the citizens made their own government but that could cause another civil war. Government Shutdown Solution we' ll MAKE nun awn GOVERNMENT BREE iia as ii I think it'd be cool if the citizens made their own government but that could cause another civil war
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (192)
[ 192 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #2 - trollofhalo
Reply +77 123456789123345869
(10/02/2013) [-]
I think it'd be cool if the citizens made their own government but that could cause another civil war.
User avatar #20 to #2 - rugyakuku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Which we need.....
User avatar #31 to #20 - dwarfman
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
What we need is reforms, both sides need to corporate. Why is it always children calling for us to spill the blood of our countrymen?
#197 to #31 - rugyakuku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/05/2013) [-]
Im not a child bub. Also if you think the governments going to corporate with the people, youre retarded. Not one of the congressmen has to even get Obama care. Nor do they even have to pay taxes. All we are is a bunch of cattle to them. They dont care. What we need is a civil war, we need to push back. Thats how this country got started in the first place. You say we need reform. how do you suppose we get it? Sign a piece of paper that will just be thrown in the trash? Believe me I know war is never the answer, but it sure as hell gets **** done.
Im not a child bub. Also if you think the governments going to corporate with the people, youre retarded. Not one of the congressmen has to even get Obama care. Nor do they even have to pay taxes. All we are is a bunch of cattle to them. They dont care. What we need is a civil war, we need to push back. Thats how this country got started in the first place. You say we need reform. how do you suppose we get it? Sign a piece of paper that will just be thrown in the trash? Believe me I know war is never the answer, but it sure as hell gets **** done.
User avatar #198 to #197 - dwarfman
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/05/2013) [-]
So do something about it. Not sit on your computer and cry about it. It will not come to civil war. And if it does it will be put down like the last one.
#199 to #198 - rugyakuku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/05/2013) [-]
oh yes wahh wahh wahhh
#12 to #2 - dwarfman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Nor is there the support for a second civil war Unless you ask ultra conservatives that are still upset their glorious leader Paul is a failure at obtaining any real political office.

FDR semirelated (Best president since Teddy)
#14 to #12 - vonspyder
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
The democrats would lose a civil war...they dont have any guns.
#18 to #14 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I love that your assume I am a democrat, and that I don't own firearms. More so I know plenty registered democrats that own guns. Not all supporters of the party are bleeding heart liberals. Oh and by the way: The South lost. It will never rise again, your party (Democrats) has already turned on you. Nice try though.
User avatar #32 to #18 - theuglypanda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Why do you assume that he assumes you're a democrat? No where does he even hint to that. You could have just said that you know plenty registered democrats that own guns. Instead you made an ass out of yourself.
#190 to #18 - vonspyder
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/04/2013) [-]
hey, egomaniac, where did you see me talking about you? thats a rhetorical question; i didnt. Go have eat a snickers, you get cranky when youre hungry.
User avatar #27 to #12 - achimp
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
In my humble opinion, FDR was quite an awful President. Not only did he fail to recognize Pearl Harbor, but he expanded government to such a point that people depended on it; which, once again in my opinion, is never good.
#29 to #27 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
>Failed to recognize Pearl Harbor, best war time president in history
>Prepared the nation for WWII, mobilized in full in mere weeks
>New Deal provided work during the depression
>AMG he expanded the government, in the middle of depression and war
>Military increase = expanded government, only Ike tried to stem it afterwords

You serious bro?
User avatar #33 to #29 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
First off, no need for red thumbs. Shows a bit of immaturity on your part; I was simply expressing my opinion in a very respectful way, intended to prompt a reasonable debate.

New Deal provided work in the depression, for mere pennies and it was never really successful in getting us out of the Depression, in fact, one could argue it drove us DEEPER into the depression.

THe military **** was mainly his generals - we had fantastic generals at the time (some of which warned FDR of an impending attack), if you want to attribute some of that to FDR, I'll concede.

You speak of expanded Government as if it was a good thing. It's not. It leads to a loss of privacy as well as personal responsibility and the free market.
User avatar #36 to #33 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
The free market is great until for 10+ years larger companies are too scared to hire just because of uncertainty. The masses are left without work and demand change, this is how communism takes hold. I support the actions of FDR for that reason, otherwise we would have not been prepared at all for the war. He had no opportunity to wind down what he had created. The expanded government was a result of the military build up from the war. Ike ran on this and attempted to contract the government (Mainly the rabid military industry complex). Blaming FDR for our modern problems is nonsense. Makes you sound like a Paul supporter.
User avatar #41 to #36 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I'm not blaming FDR, I'm simply stating he's not the saint progressives make him out to be. The Free market faces ups and downs, it has worked for many more years than 10.
And you're right, the military was grown during the time, but this was only a result of times - with war in Europe, the US would have been stupid not

War, and incredible technological advancement are the only things that ever have gotten the US, or anyone for that matter, out of a depression, or large recession.

The expanded government was in part due to the programs FDR used to create jobs.
User avatar #43 to #41 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Again I debated that last point, I feel that most of the expansion came from the military build up (Which I would never argue against considering the circumstances). I support government intervention as Keynes described. It must be regulated, like the economy. As recession periods end the government must not involve itself in the economy. During growth periods it must regulate or we have the great collapse of 2008. The economy of the next two decades was fueled by the cold war and picking over the carcass of the Axis (And stealing their best technologies).
User avatar #44 to #43 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I see now that you believe in Keynesian economics, probably that New Keynesian economics.

Our argument boils down to this: You believe the gov't should mess with the economy, I do not. Neither of us will most likely budge on this point and therefore this conversation is pointless.

It's been a pleasure.
User avatar #45 to #44 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say New Keynesian. The tradition method was far more conservative with it's approach. After entering the work force, I can say that private companies alone will not lift us out of recessions. They're so risk adverse now they are unwilling to invest, and keep billions out of the economy. That said I am rather disappointed with the O-man's efforts so far.
User avatar #47 to #45 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
If there were not loopholes, or special interest groups, government involvement would be almost unnecessary, other than the FDA and those type organizations.
User avatar #49 to #47 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Right there. Hit the nail on the head. That requires a massive overhaul. We could go so far as to drop the corporate tax rate too if we actually collected from them. Anything to avoid a Value-Added tax.
User avatar #53 to #49 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
It's also the problem with the Tax Code, Health Care regulations - we are so embroiled in pages and pages of bureaucracy that it is impossible to understand anymore, and we just keep adding more. Hell, Obamacare might be good for the country, but we have no ******* clue because it's just another stack of paper on top of a mountain of other laws.

And as people say we should raise taxes on the rich, I bang my head against the wall because it won't do anything - hte rich don't pay taxes, they hire accountants and find loopholes so they don't have It's what anyone would do, it just needs to be stopped. Raising tax rates won't close loopholes.

It was creepy - when I first saw the original comment in this chain, I disagreed with it - but now, after realizing the **** we're in, I have to agree. There's nothing wrong with being rich, let me get that right across - I'm no 99% hippie douche, but the tax code needs to be reformed. And anyone involved with politics, now and in the future won't do that; it doesn't help them.
On the other hand, the general populace is too easily manipulated by the media, and any revolution or political movement could easily get out of hand and lose track of any ideals. Not only that, but society has placed sports stars and sluts ahead of any real leaders; valuing entertainment over enlightenment, so any leader that is chosen by citizens would most likely be a ********. I don't mean to sound like an elitist, I'm sure I could choose no better; but we are in a bad place right now.
User avatar #56 to #53 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Ya know why the constitution is a great document? Simplicity. If I was to pass an amendment it would state future laws must be written in plain language and get the point across. Removal of loopholes and a refinement of taxation means we collect more money from corporates and higher earners. And you're right: There's nothing wrong with being rich. What is a problem is cry about how you're so oppressed because you pay a higher tax rate, or threatening to move to Singapore because of a disagreement with the IRS.

**** get an IRS agent with backbone enough to enforce tax laws for religious organizations. (It clearly states they must not ever be politically involved to keep their tax exemptions) Remove the bush tax cuts, shrink the military, and most importantly: Audit the entire government. Enforce performance standards afterwords.
User avatar #59 to #56 - achimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Throw out the entire tax code. Throw it out! Start from scratch, no exemptions, no ********.

The military, eh, well, cut some waste. I don't want to shrink it though.
User avatar #61 to #59 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
That's the problem it's sooo much waste. Hell the DCAA can't even tackle it all. I am not saying close our bases abroad and such. We owe that to our allies and must enforce our dominance.
#80 to #12 - bann
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
He also said **** your rights to everyone who spoke out against him as a "war time measure", including his illegal 3rd and 4th terms.
User avatar #85 to #80 - dwarfman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
That wasn't illegal until after his presidency. Unlike Achimp, you're just an uneducated moron preaching his parent's beliefs.
#114 to #85 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Such hostilities...

Actually that was my history teacher's words, though I see he was wrong, as was I. Man was some 70 years old and has said some outlandish things so I suppose I should be too surprised.

That said, I was merely commenting on him, I loved him for his policies and handling of the world war. Upon research however, his decision to run for a 3rd term, breaking an almost 200 year tradition was quite controversial, though not strictly illegal.
#117 to #114 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
As for the **** your rights thing, I was referring to this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

Essentially this lead to the idea of the FCC and our present NSA. Granted it didn't directly lead to these things, but it never really went away after this.
User avatar #22 to #2 - heroofkvatch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
that's called socialism.

which is what everyone seams to be afraid of
User avatar #30 to #22 - Ruspanic
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Citizens making their own government isn't called socialism.
User avatar #88 to #2 - avengingthefallen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when it is within the accepted nature of government to retain its power and territory through any means necessary regardless of how well- intentioned and peaceful the methods through which any sort of secession or seizure of power can be. When describing Radical thought, it's always divided between two groups of people: those who advocate peaceful resolution (in the case of most Democratic Socialists, and varying degrees of Communists and Anarchists) and those who advocate or foretell revolution (Many communists, including Marxists and Leninists, and the other half of Anarchists)

I advocate to Anarchism for the most part (but I still consider myself only to be on the basic fundamentals of it, so no one bother trying to get me into a detailed debate about it) and while it's obviously incredibly reasonable to assume that violence is inherently authoritarian in its nature, and against anarchist principles of being against any sort of coercive action, simply because it is the nature for the state to crush any opposition and threat to its power, it is inevitable that any sort of radical social movement, peaceful as it may start out to be, will stay peaceful. I myself want to remain as peaceful as I can, but it's sad for me to say that there will be no radical, world-wide social change as most radical ideologists like to predict, unless the radical faction is willing to put the blood on their hands. It's the paradox of trying to come to peaceful resolution.
User avatar #119 to #2 - thedungeonmaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
*Would definitely cause another civil war. I don't think people as a whole are ready to lead.
User avatar #6 to #2 - devilofscience
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I've got a stick do you think people could rally behind the stick revolution?
User avatar #21 to #6 - theshadowed
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Can I be Stick Minister
User avatar #54 to #2 - mattmuch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
There would also be death by exile.
User avatar #3 to #2 - ZeGerman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/02/2013) [-]
That's what America needs. A reset.
User avatar #5 to #2 - ImmortalBaconEater
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I'm sorry to break it to you but thats how we got our government in the first place.
#15 to #5 - hopskotch
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I'm glad someone said it, because I was about
User avatar #101 to #15 - killerliquid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
"to­." disappears when commented on FJ
#102 to #101 - killerliquid
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #103 to #102 - killerliquid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
#193 to #103 - hopskotch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/04/2013) [-]
3 tries and still nothing?
User avatar #196 to #193 - killerliquid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/04/2013) [-]
I did the first one on purpose.
User avatar #187 to #5 - trollofhalo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Then all of a sudden Civil War.
#7 to #5 - elaxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
This. ^ But he might refer to a direct democracy. With hundreds of millions of citizens that would be at least slightly problematic though.
User avatar #86 - trojanmannn
Reply -23 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
it hurts me to see that people think universal healthcare is a good idea
User avatar #90 to #86 - theseventhmirror
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Tone can't be conveyed through text.
User avatar #95 to #90 - trojanmannn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
universal healthcare for US citizens? You know how expensive that would be and how long the lines would be to getting treatment? Also knowing that the government spies on us doesn't make me want to put my healthcare in their hands
#98 to #95 - sexuality
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Why? They already know you're searching WebMD for "rash on my anus" so they can tell you what's wrong the second you walk in, thus creating almost no lines for the care.
User avatar #140 to #95 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Look I'm not saying that I know enough about economics to make an argument for free healthcare. However here in Europe(at least where I live) there's no problem with waiting lists and yes you do pay higher taxes but that's(to me) a small price to pay for a healthier country

What I'm trying to say is: Why wouldn't it work in the US if it works in other parts of the world?
User avatar #118 to #86 - drooms
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
It hurts me to see you post.
User avatar #133 to #86 - randomserb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Universal healthcare means everyone is healthy insofar as that's possible, at the expense of some of their income. I consider health a fairly important standard by which to judge the quality of life in a country. I also consider not dying of something arbitrary that easily could have been cured to be worth my money.
#126 to #86 - lemleet
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
there are only POSITIVE examples in many parts of the world you ignorant twat
User avatar #89 to #86 - krobeles
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Well, you're probably right. We here in Denmark have universal healthcare, and its a ******* godless hellhole, what with all the healthy people'n all.
Excuse me, while i go take a good long look at my government, that isn't shut down!
User avatar #105 to #89 - pebar
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Obamacare isn't socialized healthcare. It's subsidized private healthcare which drives up prices and it forces people to buy private healthcare which also drives up prices.
User avatar #134 to #105 - toensix
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
But you can't have actual socialized healthcare because OH MY GOD SOCIALISM@#)*#*$&#$&**().
#106 to #89 - capslockrage
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #91 to #89 - trojanmannn
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
How high are your taxes? How long does it take people to get the care they need? I'm not saying America's government is perfect but universal healthcare is not a good idea
#122 to #91 - batwill **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
In America, more of our tax money goes to healthcare than most other countries, because when uninsured people have medical emergencies, they can't afford it and end up declaring bankruptcy, which is where those taxes then go. Not to mention that they are more likely to have emergencies, because getting a routine checkup or any other preventative care would have to come out of pocket.
User avatar #110 to #91 - manofbeardliness
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Finally someone who knows something about the trade offs of universal healthcare. I'm taking macro and micro economics (for my major), and the stuff I've learned about how things actually work has completely changed my views on universal healthcare, capitalism, and politics.

Personally I do believe that there should be some form of free healthcare in the US. That way, lower income families would be able to get the care they need and others could pay for the better/faster treatment (instead of waiting 5 years for a knee transplant).
User avatar #97 to #91 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Well in Canada, taxes aren't high, and your wait time is shortened if you need immediate care, so ya it works out just fine.
#104 to #91 - jordanmarch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
People in the US pay more for their healthcare than people in the UK do on their standard taxes.
User avatar #100 to #91 - wtfduud
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I think it's like 39%.
#93 to #91 - anon id: b20fa8b2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
You can apply the exact same logic to universal health care

"im not saying universal health care is perfect but the alternative is not the a good idea"
User avatar #94 to #93 - trojanmannn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I don't really see your point...
User avatar #64 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Surely, I can't be the only one who thinks there's too many of these posts getting thumbed up?
User avatar #87 to #64 - seras
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Osama, you speak the truth like you always do.
ALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!
boom!
#55 - pebar
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
too bad the big bad federal government won't let you leave
User avatar #109 to #55 - capslockrage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
What? what does that even mean? I don't think anybody has ever been stopped from leaving the country.
User avatar #138 to #109 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Somebody didn't read about the Civil War. That's what the war was over. The Southern states didn't feel represented so they began to leave (started with South Carolina with all the others slowly joining in.

Also while Andrew "Raging Cockhole" Jackson was president, South Carolina tried it (this was well before the Civil War) and he went in and beat the **** out of them for it.

So yeah, the Federal Government would come and lay down a beatdown. Because last time states tried it, they decided to make it illegal to leave.
User avatar #170 to #138 - capslockrage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I'm talking about in current times, not during the civil war thornberry and pebar
User avatar #177 to #170 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
the federal government has basically butchered the 10th amendment and states hardly have any say in anything anymore
User avatar #174 to #170 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Alright, well do you think that the nation that has been expanding for a hundred years would be okay with half of its land seceding? Half of its population leaving?

No nation would be okay with that.
User avatar #178 to #174 - capslockrage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Not that many people are stupid enough to just leave.
User avatar #184 to #178 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
If you did what the government is doing now, in 1875, everybody would have seceded. I'd say there's plenty of reason to, but everybody's too lazy to leave behind their comforts to stop what's happening.
User avatar #113 to #109 - thornberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
During the American civil war the southern states tried to secede and form their own country, but good ol' Lincoln said "NO!" and a lot of people died.
User avatar #112 to #109 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #69 to #55 - studbeefpile
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
*high pitched southerner voice*

The south will rise again!
User avatar #73 to #69 - albertjester
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
when?
User avatar #78 to #73 - pebar
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Recent polls say 60% believe the federal government has too much power and I remember a few months ago there was a poll that said about 1/3 of the population think there will be an armed revolution in the near future.
#77 to #73 - studbeefpile
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Considering the Government just 'shut down'.......
Considering the Government just 'shut down'.......
User avatar #107 - capslockrage
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
HAHAHA
HE THINKS FREE HEALTHCARE IS ACTUALLY A THING!

You'll most likely pay more in extra taxes than you would ever pay on hospital bills, so I'm glad america doesn't have free healthcare.
User avatar #108 to #107 - capslockrage
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I have probably spent $1000 in my lifetime in hospital bills, which I know is probably lucky, but still. I don't want to be paying for other people having to go to the hospital
#116 to #108 - drooms
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #34 - malific
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
You guys do realize The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) isn't actually Free Health Care right? It's just government run Health Insurance.
User avatar #144 to #34 - rescueryan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
the AFFORDABLE is the key word, not free
User avatar #195 to #144 - malific
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/04/2013) [-]
The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.

In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.
Cheap right? This is the fee if you DON'T get it.



^ This guy makes $11,500 a year part time according to his linkedin page. His fee is $175 a month for his Obamacare. $2100 a year that's 18% of his income. Obamacare is supposed to take your income into account when it calculates. You can go to You need to login to view this link and get insurance for $44.... granted that a really low plan, but this guy didn't even get vision or dental for his $175 from obamacare which he even said he wanted.

Now granted I have no idea what sort of plan he has... but paying 18% of your income for healthcare that is designed to help those who can't afford it is NOT what I call Affordable.

There are plenty of AFFORDABLE healthcare plans out there MUCH better than ACA.
User avatar #28 - thedarkestrogue
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
I thought that said "healthcare and piracy" and i was happy for a second.
Now I'm sad.
User avatar #63 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
How about people stop trying to raise taxes for healthcare that won't even cover most medical procedures? It's like you people haven't even looked in to this Obamacare.
User avatar #150 to #63 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Obamacare is the worst way to take care of healthcare. Not to mention that the real problem is that the prices just keep inflating because insurance companies haggle the prices to 30% of the costs, so the hospitals keep raising it. And every hospital has a different chargemaster.

So I think if we just made hospitals lower their costs (some of the things are more than 25 times the cost as the same procedure in Canada) and then have the government take care of said costs by using taxes, versus forcing business owners to pay for their employees, since not every business owner even has profit. For instance, my mom and her business only gets her 100 bucks a month after all the costs of running it.
User avatar #72 to #63 - BraindeadBuddha
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Agreed. Whats needed is a much higher tax and complete universal healthcare so no one has to buy insurance and no one will have to live with and die younger because of curable diseases. Imagine that. What a beautiful thing that would be.
User avatar #75 to #72 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Too bad it would never work. To increase taxes to the point where it would actually pay for any procedure needed would also raise taxes to the point where it would cripple the working class and send thousands into poverty. Unless of course you wish to lower Doctor's wages to the point where they might as well be flipping burgers for the money they're making.
#76 to #75 - BraindeadBuddha
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Except it totally works in many other countries. Many with much higher living standards than the US. So there's that.
User avatar #79 to #76 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Those are also countries that aren't 8 trillion dollars into debt because they haven't been fighting for and against sand ******* for several years. Taxes are already rather high to fund the military that's defending Muslims from other Muslims.
#83 to #79 - BraindeadBuddha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's also not true, Denmark for example has been involved in all the recent military operations of the US. Iraq, Afghanistan as well as Libya through NATO and so forth. And not just for fun, send more soldiers to Afghanistan than the US per capita.
Who am I kidding. I didn't expect you to know what you're talking about.
You're entitled to your opinion, but just try and read up on stuff before you argue that's all.
User avatar #84 to #83 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
That's per capita. That means percentage of population. When you take into account GDP, actual number of troops sent in, amount of tanks, planes, and boats, the US has contributed about 70% of all forces sent to the middle east. Also, we have a very large number of welfare leeches who are not contributing to society, we import most goods and only really export raw materials, we're putting ourselves down the ******* and this "Affordable" healthcare act will only make us go to **** even faster.
User avatar #92 to #84 - BraindeadBuddha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Yes, I'm aware you carried the bulk, but the US is also the much larger country, (nearly 300 million people as compared to 6 million) point is, a country, albeit smaller, has universal healthcare and contributes to military operations all over the world alongside the US.

Also, these so called "leeches" are definitely not covered as well as the less fortunate are in countries with a Scandinavian welfare model, which of course puts a much higher strain on the economy so again, I can see what you're getting at, but I disagree.
And maybe it's my mistake for trying to make Americans see the benefits of this model.

I'm glad I live where I live is all, and I'm sorry for Americans and their problems, and although there are many factors that cause these, it seems to be mainly the extremely high inequality some of which would be changed with healthcare reform in my opinion.
I can for the life of me not see why anyone thinks Obamacare is a bad idea, but such is American conservatism I suppose.

I hope it'll be sorted out nonetheless, also for my Aunt and Uncle and their family and friend's sake.
User avatar #82 to #79 - cityofechoes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Every poorly managed country is going to have debt, but the Federal Reserve has a bigger role in our current debt problem than mismanagement. Bring back government issued currency and we wouldn't be swimming in debt.
#81 to #76 - freedomwitness
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
some country we protect with our military at no cost to them
User avatar #99 to #81 - kinginyellow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Like Canada? You don't protect us, we can handle ourselves. Plus the only enemies we'd have would be because we're stuck connected to US
#37 - VaultTechy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
"We'll make Canada"
"We'll make Canada"
#39 to #37 - iamnuff
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
or "New, New england"
#74 to #39 - albertjester
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
#40 to #39 - VaultTechy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
yeahno.mkv
yeahno.mkv
User avatar #67 to #37 - heartlessrobot
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
>Implying the US isn't also spying on Canada. And every country in the world.
>Implying every First World Country isn't also spying on every country in the world
User avatar #16 - carthos
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2013) [-]
Should be able to do that, I mean, America was formed like that in the first place.