Let the Paultards move to Somalia.

Douche chill

http://videosift.com/video/Somalia-Libertarian-Paradise

Now there's an idea... move all the Repugs (Teapublicans?) to Somalia.

I have not problem with the supreme court. They call it a tax and as such is constitutional.


I do have a big disagreement with the bill being government control as such hope for complete repeal next election.

Fucks me how anyone can have a problem with this...

People bitch about taxation to support public healthcare, but where the fuck do republicans think defense money comes from? The back of the couch? For a fraction of the annual spend on defense, the US could have a world class free medical system and no one's taxes would change. Sure, you'd have to cut back on a few imperialist invasions "peacekeeping missions", and you might have to relinquish the whole 'saviour of the world' title (how's that GFC working out?), but it's doable...

While the gov. is spending big on appearances, the people who pay the taxes are going without. That doesn't make sense to any rational person, but I guess rationality is not a thing teapublicans have been accused of...

>> ^bobknight33:

I have not problem with the supreme court. They call it a tax and as such is constitutional.

I do have a big disagreement with the bill being government control as such hope for complete repeal next election.


Then you can fuck off.

You know the funniest thing about US health care: Norway, where I come from, spends the most on healthcare in the world: $5,352 per capita on health care. For that formidable price we all get full health coverage: we get FREE healthcare. All of us.

But, there is ONE country that spends MORE on healthcare: The USA. The US spends $7960 per capita on health care. and for that formidable price they get NOTHING, because you have to have insurance as well.


Good job, US.

So its actually a bit unfair to say that every other industrial country has FREE healthcare for everyone: Compared to the US of A , its cheaper than free. Much cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

I'm sad because I can only upvote this once.

Also, you can fuck off, bobknight33.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

You know the funniest thing about US health care: Norway, where I come from, spends the most on healthcare in the world: $5,352 per capita on health care. For that formidable price we all get full health coverage: we get FREE healthcare. All of us.
But, there is ONE country that spends MORE on healthcare: The USA. The US spends $7960 per capita on health care. and for that formidable price they get NOTHING, because you have to have insurance as well.

Good job, US.
So its actually a bit unfair to say that every other industrial country has FREE healthcare for everyone: Compared to the US of A , its cheaper than free. Much cheaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expe
nditure_(PPP)_per_capita

>> ^bobknight33:

I have not problem with the supreme court. They call it a tax and as such is constitutional.

I do have a big disagreement with the bill being government control as such hope for complete repeal next election.


Are you in favor of repealing other taxes that force us to pay for service you don't want?

I believe in a government as small and limited as possible. The corruption over the years have lead us to what we have. I would gather that more that 90% of elected official receive gains from groups for policies that don't serve the public. AS such such we can't trust our politicians to be honest I just assume a small government to limit the corruption and damage to the American people.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bobknight33:
I have not problem with the supreme court. They call it a tax and as such is constitutional.

I do have a big disagreement with the bill being government control as such hope for complete repeal next election.

Are you in favor of repealing other taxes that force us to pay for service you don't want?

>> ^bobknight33:

I believe in a government as small and limited as possible. The corruption over the years have lead us to what we have. I would gather that more that 90% of elected official receive gains from groups for policies that don't serve the public. AS such such we can't trust our politicians to be honest I just assume a small government to limit the corruption and damage to the American people.


I agree with everything you said except the small government part. The government is supposed to work for us, but they're working for their highest contributors. Shrinking the government and limiting powers won't fix the corruption. I believe the best solution to fix the corruption is a term limit for EVERY elected office. Corporations, PACs, and super PACs would go broke trying to buy elections and politicians. Take it one step farther and only allow limited public funds for campaigns. Serving in an elected public office should be like serving in the national guard, part time and not a career.

The only point where we disagree is the actual size of government. Everything else I am in total agreement.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bobknight33:
I believe in a government as small and limited as possible. The corruption over the years have lead us to what we have. I would gather that more that 90% of elected official receive gains from groups for policies that don't serve the public. AS such such we can't trust our politicians to be honest I just assume a small government to limit the corruption and damage to the American people.

I agree with everything you said except the small government part. The government is supposed to work for us, but they're working for their highest contributors. Shrinking the government and limiting powers won't fix the corruption. I believe the best solution to fix the corruption is a term limit for EVERY elected office. Corporations, PACs, and super PACs would go broke trying to buy elections and politicians. Take it one step farther and only allow limited public funds for campaigns. Serving in an elected public office should be like serving in the national guard, part time and not a career.

I don't know. The Obamacare debate isn't that interesting or compelling. It seems to make sense that our system will be better under Obamacare than it is now - but only time will tell.

The more interesting question is how we are going to handle the coming advances in medicine with the "right to healthcare". What I mean by that is are we going to expend huge dollars to keep people alive at ridiculous costs?

I've seen so many cool videos on the sift - like a pig lung receiving gene therapy in a box before transplant - but all those really cool things are going to cost a lot of money. How do we most effectively allocate our resources and where do we draw the line?

Also, this video kind of makes its argument on an ad populum argument...

Excuse me @kagenin and @Yogi, but since when has it been acceptable on the Sift to tell fellow members to fuck off?

The US healthcare debate is one of most retarded debates around but that doesn't mean "then you can fuck off" is an acceptable response, especially when we have reality and inevitability on our side.

@Quboid , @dag

Yogi seems to make a habit out of it.


Even in posts/topics where I am in agreement with him I usually disagree with what how he says it.


I don't think he belongs on the sift.

As someone who skews libertarian overall, I have to say I'm glad Obamacare is a go. It's one of the times I totally break with the Libertarian line.

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

My main concern with Obamacare is that it won't do enough. I wish we had gotten the public option as well. I'd have more confidence in prices coming down with the extra competition.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

never ceases to amaze me how sensitive anonymous people get when other anonymous people say mean things. it's almost like the internet is shoving pc down our throats! fuck off, internet!


We are Videosift.
We are Many.
We are not the Internet.
We are rather forgiving.
We expect you to act courteously.
Expect us.

>> ^Fletch:

Now there's an idea... move all the Repugs (Teapublicans?) to Somalia.


I believe the PC term is Repugnant-American.

>> ^kevingrr:

I don't know. The Obamacare debate isn't that interesting or compelling. It seems to make sense that our system will be better under Obamacare than it is now - but only time will tell.
The more interesting question is how we are going to handle the coming advances in medicine with the "right to healthcare". What I mean by that is are we going to expend huge dollars to keep people alive at ridiculous costs?
I've seen so many cool videos on the sift - like a pig lung receiving gene therapy in a box before transplant - but all those really cool things are going to cost a lot of money. How do we most effectively allocate our resources and where do we draw the line?
Also, this video kind of makes its argument on an ad populum argument...

Most people don't need pig lung transplants. "Basic" healthcare (check-ups, shots, testing, dental, other stuff not involving pig parts) would serve most people well, I think, and it's a far better option than no health care at all.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?

I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences. Blue people stuck in red states are upset that some people can't afford the treatment they need, while red people stuck in blue states mostly are just bellyaching because they think someone got helped by a doctor, and that maybe some of their precious dollars were used to commit that horrifying act of decency.

Hence the video.

I'd be fine with a federalist approach if what we were talking about was differing ideas of how to achieve universal coverage at a basic quality level (and incidentally, the ACA allows for states to do their own thing as long as it covers as many people as well as ACA's system would). Instead we seem to have differing ideas about what our moral obligations to our fellow citizens are: keeping taxes low, or making sure everyone can afford the healthcare they need?

>> ^bobknight33:

I believe in a government as small and limited as possible. The corruption over the years have lead us to what we have. I would gather that more that 90% of elected official receive gains from groups for policies that don't serve the public. AS such such we can't trust our politicians to be honest I just assume a small government to limit the corruption and damage to the American people.
>> ^jimnms:
>> ^bobknight33:
I have not problem with the supreme court. They call it a tax and as such is constitutional.

I do have a big disagreement with the bill being government control as such hope for complete repeal next election.

Are you in favor of repealing other taxes that force us to pay for service you don't want?


I think 90% is conservative, however, I think down-sizing a large corrupt government just leaves you with a small corrupt government. I'd rather fix the system (simplistic, but consider it more of an idealogical disagreement with your solution), which seems more and more impossible to do as the plutocracy gains more and more power through the senators, congressmen, and judges who serve them. If Citizens United hasn't triggered SHTF (yet), I don't know what will. It's as if BigMacs, American Idol, and Twitter render people daft, pacified, and indifferent to reality.

@Fletch

I agree that the basics are important, but I don't think the basics are what are driving up costs...right?

As I found in a nytimes article:

"One reason(that healthcare is so expensive), as mentioned previously, is that people like to live and be healthy. There seems to be no upward limit on the amount of money that most people would spend toward that goal (as evident in the number of medical-related bankruptcies in America). And that, of course, puts the purveyors of health care at a distinct advantage over the consumers of health care."

People feel entitled to the very best care possible. That means whatever treatments or procedures will extend their life and maintain their well being are treatments they want/think they deserve.

If people were OK with just the basics I don't think we would be spending $2.3 Trillion a year on healthcare.

On a separate note, as my girlfriend who is an M.D. likes to remind me, we spend an enormous amount of our healthcare dollars on "end of life care." Certainly not the only issue but it is interesting.

-Kevin

>> ^NetRunner:

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?
I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences.

It may take a long time but if you've got a good mix of with and without states, people will gradually migrate to their preferred environment.

If the programs are successful, over time I suspect purple and even some red states would change their tune.

My point was not, "fuck you if you're in the wrong state", it was "why should I, as a NYer, have to wait for TX to get on board if I want reform?"

I do not see this as a moral issue and I do not think government should enforce good behavior anyway, only punish the harming of others.

That last statement is ripe for taking out of context; please try to resist doing so.