Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Latest users (5): divergence, liberalgodess, Shiny, tredbear, youregaylol, anonymous(16).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6898 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
Abortion isnt murder.
Scricter gun laws are needed.
Universal Healthcare is a must.
Gay marriage should be legal everywhere.

come at me bros
#6941 to #6898 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
>implying killing an innocent human being isn't murder
>implying gun laws will change anything
>implying the bum near the garbage bins is worth universal healthcare
>implying homosexuality is normal
User avatar #7097 to #6941 - bobodevetjedan (08/18/2012) [-]
why wouldn't you give human being a healthcare? why would you have government if some guy who didn't have luck in life can't at least be somewhat healthy and ask doctor's help if he needs it but can't pay for it?
#6940 to #6898 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
liberal faggot
#6923 to #6898 - iamhollywood (08/17/2012) [-]
Abortion is murder
Gun laws don't work
Universal health care is a joke.
Marriage is a man and a woman

This is my serious views. Not trolling.
User avatar #6910 to #6898 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
I agree that abortion isn't murder.

Gun laws are irrelevant because smart people don't need the laws and violent people won't obey them.

Universal healthcare is a nice idea in theory, but ultimately it would cause more problems than it would solve (the unemployed citizens who don't provide for this country would get more attention than the working class people that actually earned their living, and without the working class getting the medical attention it needs, the labor force begins to collapse).

I don't support gay marriage but I'm not going to actively challenge it (i.e, signing petitions or protesting).
User avatar #6911 to #6910 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
What do you mean it would only work in theory? I'm guessing you don't realize that the US is the only developed nation without universal healthcare.
User avatar #6912 to #6911 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
In theory, as in, yes, it could work if every participant complied with it in a specific way. And by that I mean, you could give free healthcare to poor and unemployed citizens, but they would still have to wait in line behind the working class. And I don't foresee that happening. What I see if a mob of people with no money flooding into hospitals across the country, running them ragged, and not letting the needs of the working class to be met, which would cause labor to drop, and our already shitty economy would sink even lower.
User avatar #6914 to #6912 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
Other countries don't have that problem, so why would the US? What makes the US special? Do you believe Americans are just incompetent people?

The US already spends more per capita for healthcare than any other nation, yet it's ranked as the worst nation in the developed world when it comes to healthcare.

There's no reason why medicare can't be applied to all.
#6930 to #6914 - repostsrepost (08/17/2012) [-]
Medicare is going broke how's that for a reason? Let's stop calling it universal healthcare because its not universal. Plenty of people are denied treatment in these countries because the state does not want to provide them. At least in the US it is a statistical fact that Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims as a percentage of total claims than any US insurance company. Statist Healthcare doesn't provide a service, because that service is already being provided, it only completely dominates the whole industry. Government domination of an industry has no place in any country that believes in liberty. The whole right to healthcare issue is nonsense. You have no right to what you do not have an exclusive claim example being the money and labor of others. We are the only developed country in the world without totalitarian healthcare. Good. We're going bankrupt enough as it is without it.
User avatar #6931 to #6930 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
Not a single thing you've said is true. US Medicare isn't going "bankrupt". You're confusing it with Social Security which had its coffers raided to fund the Iraq war.

Can you provide a source for your claim that Medicare and Medicaid deny more people than private insurance? Medicare and Medicaid exist so as not to deny those in need. Medicare is universal healthcare for seniors, and Medicaid exists to cover impoverished children and those with disabilities. Private insurance at most will only cover half the cost of medications, and they frequently cut people loose when they cease being profitable. Also, if you have a pre-existing condition, a private insurance company will never cover you and unless you're obscenely wealthy, you'll go bankrupt over medical bills.

Do you believe law enforcement should be privatized? How about no more public schools so only well-off families are capable of getting their children educated? There's nothing sinister or immoral about public insurance to make sure every citizen is healthy.

No idea where your getting this "government is slavery" nonsense. Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

The US is the sickest nation in the developed world. It has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, and it's ranked as having the worst healthcare in the developed world. Do you think that's a good thing?
User avatar #6916 to #6914 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
First of all, yes, I believe much of this nation is comprised of idiots.

Secondly, that is the very reason I don't think it would work here. I think Americans take too much advantage of the freedoms we are given, and aren't disciplined enough to operate as the unified nation we used to be.
User avatar #6917 to #6916 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
The only thing stopping it is your corrupt politicians and media. If it can work anywhere else, it can work in the US.
User avatar #6918 to #6917 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
Socialism is just a precursor to communism. And there's a reason communism failed.
User avatar #6919 to #6918 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism is the nationalization of production. Providing education, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. is not socialist.

Do you believe Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, etc. are socialist? If your answer is "yes", than you're part of the "idiots" which comprise your nation.
User avatar #6920 to #6919 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
Healthcare can be considered production, as it's literally producing health. And I didn't say anything about education or law enforcement. I'm for public education, because it would help reduce the level of ignorance in this country. And obviously law enforcement needs to be socialized because where else are they going to get money? Bake sales?
User avatar #6921 to #6920 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
Healthcare is a service. Doctors and nurses don't manufacture pharmaceuticals or medical supplies.

Stop saying "socialized". It isn't socialism. You don't know what you're talking about. The lot of you should of had a compulsory civics class.
User avatar #6922 to #6921 - jokeface (08/17/2012) [-]
Fine, then come up with a better word for it. But it still means that the working class is paying taxes to fund the care of lazy, useless citizens who haven't earned it, and will ultimately cause the downfall of the labor force. And people like you say this idea would make it "fair".
User avatar #6926 to #6922 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
You don't think many Americans have "earned" their right to live?

The US spends an obscene amount of money subsidizing hospitals and insurance companies. The insurance companies so they keep their premiums affordable, and the hospitals because often the insurance companies won't pay up and the person can't afford it (medical bills represent 62% of bankruptcy cases in the US).

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world, and it's all to prop up a for-profit system.

You could afford it by making the rich pay more than 15% in taxes. The rich pay less in taxes than the average Joe and Jane. The tax cuts and capital gains loophole are why your country is in so much debt. You'd be making a ~$100 million surplus just by removing the capital gains loophole and the Bush tax cuts.
User avatar #6935 to #6926 - reaganomix (08/17/2012) [-]
Even if the rich were taxed more, it doesn't change that price controls still need to take effect. The rich only pay a smaller percentage, they still pay more money though. I'd be happy with a flat tax or even a flat progressive tax, but I don't really think that is needed.
#6951 to #6935 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
Flat taxes are awful and are what lead to gross income inequality.

Do you think it's fair for millionaires and billionaires to pay a smaller share of their income than a guy that makes $40,000 a year? Who do you think needs it more?

Furthermore, the US is a consumer-based income. It's dependent on Joe and Jane America to use their cash to purchase products. What do most wealthy people do? They take their income, hoard it and occasionally spend it on something like a Swedish-made yacht.

Americans have become politically retarded. They now support policies counterintuitive to what's good for their nation and themselves. Furthermore, you have class-based societies like the UK that have better social mobility than the United States. 2/3 rich people in the United States inherit their wealth, they don't work for it, they don't produce anything. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs earned their wealth. They made something. Mitt Romney on the other hand never accomplished anything, and represents everything that's wrong with America (see Bain Capital).
#6968 to #6951 - reaganomix (08/17/2012) [-]
The rich don't just hoard there money, they reinvest there money to try to get a return on it as well. In turn the money used will be used to improve businesses, hire more workers, or expand.

Now lets look at other statistics shall we. Like how those in the very top bracket rarely stay there for more than a decade. I believe the statistic was 1/3 of the families in the highest bracket were still there after a decade. It's actually extraordinarily easy to see the wealth of the people in a bracket. What is not easy is actually following individuals over the years. Yes, the top bracket is very wealthy, but for the families at the top they do not stay there, they move up and down like all other families. During the housing bubble, anyone that owned a house could have been in the top 1 percent of income holders as long as they sold the house.

Don't get me wrong, I do hate the large amount of influence corporations and multi-nationals have. With there large influence they can do many things to screw over citizens. I just believe we don't need a large government that has a judicial monopoly over its people.

Also, so what if people inherit money. It's a shame I didn't inherit amazing violin playing potential. So I suggest we cut out a violinist brain and transplant his music playing potential into everyone equally. Nature in itself is not fair. If the person that inherit the money pisses it away on stupid that is his fault. If he cannot invest the money in the correct things or makes to many risky choices, he will lose his money. On a more personal level, I have a friend that is very fortunate, his father is part of a very successful business and he is living the good life. My friend is probably just going to piss away the money is father spent on college as he does nothing because he is lazy. (I still love the guy though)
User avatar #6934 to #6926 - reaganomix (08/17/2012) [-]
The U.S. government spends a lot on healthcare because more than a half of the healthcare in America is government sponsored ie; Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Hospitals, etc.

As the country becomes more prosperous the cost of care always goes up. When you compare the style of care in America to European countries, we can see the difference just by stepping inside the rooms where patients reside. In America, we have more single patient rooms when compared to countries that have healthcare controlled by the government.

Obviously, if the countries that have Universal Healthcare actually paid the market price for all the care they give out, they would be bankrupt already. To stop themselves from spending all their money on Healthcare, they need to implement price controls on goods and services. Any economist worth his salt knows that price controls always leads to problems. Rent controls cause the deterioration and destruction of houses because there is more demand than supply so the landlord doesn't need to upkeep his building to attract new residents or the landlord can't charge enough to sustain the building so it gets destroyed.

The same principles is applied to healthcare. If some service is demanded more than the supply, people are put on waiting list because the price system is not able to accurately show the supply and demand.

Another thing that needs to be accounted for is Malpractice insurance. If a mistake happens and the doctor is at fault (and even when they are not at fault) they get sued for millions of dollars. Malpractice insurance is paid for by the doctor and it ranges from $14,000 to $1,000,000. This cost is then brought to the patient by increasing the cost of care just like Corporate taxes gets put on the consumer.
User avatar #6952 to #6934 - deltadeltadelta (08/17/2012) [-]
In Canada our universal healthcare program is called Medicare. It's simply public insurance.

Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Hospitals aren't what cost so much. The US also doesn't take very good care of its Veterans compared to Canada, the UK and France.

Dude, everything you're saying is nonsense, it's bullshit. You've been terribly mislead and I don't know where you're coming up with this stuff.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." - Thomas Jefferson.

Sorry to say, but you're not well informed. Nor do most Americans seems to be.

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar #6953 to #6952 - reaganomix (08/17/2012) [-]
>Medicare, Medicaid don't cost so much
>Year 2000 + 12
>Calling everything I said as bullshit
>Quoting Thomas Jefferson
>Not knowing basic Economics
>2012
>Calling me misinformed.
>TwentyTwelve

Almost took you seriously there.

Care to point out the bullshit?

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security make up the majority of U.S. expenditure. Of course there are other things like military and education, but when it comes to Healthcare expenditure taking into account both private and public. Public funding is always a larger portion in America.
#6913 to #6912 - ragged (08/17/2012) [-]
Hi, this is Ragged, and I support gay marriage. That is all.
#6900 to #6898 - Mentoman (08/17/2012) [-]
That's cool.

I do believe that Abortion is Murder.

Since when do criminals obey laws, much less those dealing with Firearms?

I agree with your stance on healthcare.

I agree with your stance on gay marriage.



Although next time, I really do think you should try to engage discussion, rather than trying to start a shitstorm.
#6957 to #6900 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
abortion isnt murder you dumb fuck.

Ill be the first one to say that, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM IF I WAS ABORTED.

I dont care what you think because your on the CANT side and the CANT side dosnt matter, because the CAN side will always be on top.

People CAN and WILL abort if they want. You cannot stop them and your opinion is worthless.
#7123 to #6957 - Mentoman (08/19/2012) [-]
0/10
Anons have no opinion.
#6902 to #6900 - anonymous (08/17/2012) [-]
What swiftykidd said. A chicken egg isnt a chicken
#6904 to #6902 - Mentoman (08/17/2012) [-]
An unfertilized chicken egg isn't. But when the chicken develops within the egg, does that not make it a chicken?
-1
#6901 to #6900 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#6903 to #6901 - Mentoman (08/17/2012) [-]
I do believe that life begins at conception, or at least, shortly after. Like, at least a week after. It has been proven that the fetus begins to emit brain waves similar to thought after 8 days.

How does a man kill a pregnant woman by stabbing her to death, and is found guilty of two counts of murder, but a doctor can kill the child and be payed to do so?


Regardless, you can believe what you choose to.
-1
#6907 to #6903 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#6908 to #6907 - Mentoman (08/17/2012) [-]
Did I ever mention how old the fetus was?

I believe that once the fetus actually begins to develop(after the embryo develops a human-esque body[eyes, fingers etc.]), it begins living. So after the 2nd trimester allows for too much time, IMO.

I agree that if the baby poses a fatal threat, then it is better to save the mother, but aborting the child isn't the solution. Most abortive procedures render the woman infertile, or surgically scarred to where conception is no longer feasible, so that is no longer vaild.

As for the third option, they can always choose to put their child up for adoption. There is a waiting list for parents, whether they are a homosexual couple or an infertile(man or woman) couple, who wish to adopt a child rather than give birth to their own.
 Friends (0)