How much would all those tests and surgery, and therapies cost in the US, with all the hidden costs of pharmaceuticals etc.

The more pertinent question is, how much did the tests cost you in taxes or provincial premiums? I paid $5K ONE year. The previous and subsequent years I paid very little (in the low hundreds) because I didn't have big needs. You, on the other hand, pay 2 or 3 thousand (average) a year into the Canadian tax system whether you need it or not. Over the course of your lifetime you are spending many thousands more than I am.

I doubt anyone has ever said their public health care is perfect, but everyone can agree: It's a lot better than Americas current one.

No - we don't have to agree with that because it is a patently false statement. Our system is different than your, but it is FAR from 'inferior'. The US system creates far more innovation, has better doctors, and far more rapid treatment times. It has its problems, but it is not a clear-cut obvious answer that a single-payer public option would solve those problems. Socialized medical plans are different. Not better. You pay for those so-called 'free' systems with higher taxes, longer wait times, and 'denied coverage' where in our super-evil private system we have no health tax, extremely fast treatment, and everyone gets treated whether they can pay or not. It isn't as black & white an issue as neolibs try to pretend it is.

Now, tell me how having the government making decisions about my health care is worse than having profit driven corporations making those decisions.

A tragic story. Not to pour salt, but you really should be asking yourself a much different question. "Would it have been any different under a government system?" Have you even HEARD the comments from Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and the other geniuses pushing this nightmare? Was your father over 60 at the time? If he was, then you would be comforted to know that Obama (or some government panel) would probably have decided that it was "time for him to take a pain pill". You think that's exaggeration? Those were Obama's EXACT WORDS when asked whether his system would treat an old person.

Fovernment health care is not going to approve every person that comes for treatment. You think they're going to approve every possible treatment, no matter how expensive or what condition the patient is in? Puh-leeze. If anything, it is FAR more likely that FEWER treatments will be 'covered' under a government system than are approved by a private one. If you think your father's outcome was tragic, imagine it being repeated with far greater frequency as Obamacare bungs the elderly into hospice HOPING they die quickly rather than giving them all kinds of expensive drugs, treatments, and care.

They copied the idea from Molyneux' Black & White!

A human died, can't we just stop killing humans? Whether they are young, old, fat, thin, poor, rich (no wait, scrub rich), black, white, christian, muslim, atheist, just stop it.

One innings people, live it like you mean it and don't kill any more humans.

I hope this haunts this cop for the rest of his life, because it should.

some great things in your pqueue, wonderful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKj72gJrROY for staple singers replace. looks like you embedded a black/white version though. ill see if i can find the originally embedded one. love the staple singers.

anyone remember the black & white minstrel show?

Wow: "what's black, white, and red all over?" Was that scene scripted? It came off too perfectly.

I am impressed by the way TDS can approach serious and poignant subjects with sharp wit in front of the actors in these events.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'house md, hugh, laurie, ms paint, speed, airbrush, black, white' to 'house md, hugh, laurie, ms paint, speed, airbrush, black, white, Moby' - edited by JTZ

I don't believe this for a second. Molyneux is know for making huge claims he can't back up. Remember Black & White, the creature was nowhere near as impressive as we were made to believe. Also Fable was a huge let down compared to what was promised. This interaction with Milo seems very scripted and I'm sure that when it's unscripted Milo will not understand or react well to most of what is presented by a real player.

^lol
But I think reverse racism would be more accurately described as hating your own race (regardless Limbaugh is using it wrong)
see: http://www.videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist

*lies *controversy *jackassery

Thanks! I found it randomly somewhere.. it looks great in black & white though, and thank you for linking me to the artists page! I'm loving his work.

In reply to this comment by mauz15:
Congrats on the gold star. Epic avatar btw. I only knew of the black and white version.

this is made of cheese, black, white, and happy old time music.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1980, john, hurt, anthony, hopkins, joseph, merrick, black, white' to '1980, john hurt, anthony hopkins, john merrick, black, white, david lynch' - edited by kronosposeidon

What really needs to happen is for the government to manage money more responsibly. There isn't a need for tax cuts and there really isn't a need for an increase in taxes. Stop pressing money, stop spending an astronomical amount of military and wham - we'll be doing at least a shred better.

Many European countries have high tax rates of which they also have better school systems and better health care overall. We may have better schools theoretically ; but only if you are able to afford their astronomical prices. Same goes for healthcare if you're one of those many that seem to have millions and millions or one of the 1% that has billions.

This country is just in not ready for a more social democracy - there is too much corruption, the structures (occupational, class, etc)are vastly unbalanced and unchecked and too many people in this country are much too closed-minded to even see how it even effects themselves. Too much of the "majority" think in terms of black & white and launch attacks with generalized criticisms almost seemingly pre-programmed into their synapses; like our good pal' quantummushroom.

I agree with everything you just said. If what you say is indeed true, isn't the argument about gay laws, rather than gay rights? Rights don't change from country to country, or time to time, only laws do. Gays don't want new rights, as you stated, they want new laws. Given that, which sounds easier to convince someone of:

1. A new law which permits gay marriage between consenting individuals.
2. A new law which permits marriage between all consenting individuals.

I'm not gay, so why should I care about, or support #1? I can already get married, so why should I care a new law permitting marriage? You might be able to convince some that it is a "good" cause, but most people will be apathetic because it doesn't affect them--and many will down right resent it because it explicitly goes against their beliefs.

Now try to round up support for #2, if there are no laws currently in place about marriage, it would be pretty easy to find support, wouldn't it? If you ask me the same question about #2, I would absolutely support your new law. I want to get married, so I will support a law which permits me to marry. #2 finds universal support because it finds universal common ground.

Imagine a situation where there are a dozen laws, each permitting a different group to get married. With each new group added, it actually becomes harder for new groups to gain rights because there are less people left with any reason to support it. When you already have something, you care a lot less about getting it...even if it means that others will get it too.

Selfish? Maybe, but isn't a law which only gives "rights" to one specific group selfish? The civil rights movement was extremely selfish. It was not "progress" save for one particular group. Blacks gained the right to marry whites, but what about gays? Why didn't black people care about gays getting married?

If, when granting blacks the legal ability to marry whites, we had phrased the law as in #2, blacks would have had their right to marry just the same--and so would the gays, and every other persecuted group for that matter. The problem of "Gay marriage" would have been solved before anyone ever knew it existed.

If humans really are equal, why should the words "gay, black, white, male, female" or any other group description ever exist in any law? Why should we ever discuss laws or rights with these terms? You're either human or your not, what difference does anything else make?

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:

His videos are great and don't seem completely random (unlike mine), his comments are topical, insightful and witty, his presence is always well-received... spoco2, you're the coolest Aussie I've ever had the pleasure of 'knowing'.

and mind you, I happen to know an ex-SASR-(Aussie special forces)-turned-businessman.
then again he is kind of an obnoxious jerk, so I guess that's not much of a compliment, really.

You have a nice dog. (Is it even yours though?) Why is he black&white? Is that some sort of symbolism for you being colour-blind? Or was that you trying to be artistic?

OK, I'll just shut up then, shall I?