Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Medicare for All.
Germany Paddo09 
Awesome: youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k The funny parts are not the jokes. There are things I like about the US. For real! I met lots of friendly people there, I like that you guys are thinking big for infrastructure projects for example, I like your mindset that everyone has to work and everyone should do their best to build something, You are sooo supportive if someone starts his / her own business... I really like these things. But healthcare, gun laws, global warming and education... What are you thinking?
2020-02-17 12:22
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
#1
OCEAN | 
Reunion 1iquser 
"healthcare bad we cant pay" but then they support the dudes who spend a fuckton on the military lmao
2020-02-17 12:28
> sPeNd A fUcKtOn oN tHe militArY lMaO Can you please explain how decreasing military expenditures could help make health care free? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4.. I really want to know, because even Bernie Sanders can't explain where he's going to get money.
2020-02-17 13:00
Because you pay less for military and pay more for health care
2020-02-18 22:01
#41
bruttJ | 
Australia JPT 
I don't think that would even happen, probably waste it in something else.
2020-02-19 07:36
Yes, that's what Bernie's fans say. Now look at the picture of the US budget and explain how decreasing military expenditures (even to pretty much zero) can help make health care free? Just so you know, military expenditures are about $650 billions, health care expenditures are slightly higher, and all annual health expenditures are about $3.6 trillions. I don't expect much from hltv folks, but spreading the same bullshit over and over againis ridiculous.
2020-02-19 11:02
I never said that it was completely free just by cutting military expenditures but it's a step forward
2020-02-19 11:14
It won't. It's not like Obama was a crazy rightist who hated poor people, but even him did absolutely nothing except for making insurance even more expensive for the middle class. Also decreasing military expenditures too much isn't a good idea for the US economy (google how much military boosts the whole economy in the USA), and I don't even talk that giving up the military superiority to China and Russia will affect the whole world, especially Europe. Don't you have enough problems with pro-russian separatist states in Ukraina, Moldova and Georgia, you want more?
2020-02-19 11:29
you dont even have "free" health care in germany. For most people their employeer pays for it. Hows that REALLY different from america?
2020-02-19 11:40
It is different because people without an employer have it too
2020-02-19 11:48
That is the problem. USA health care expenditure is ridiculous and it dont even cover everyone. You spend 100€:s on ibuprofein pill while in hospital :D
2020-02-19 12:29
I never thought that I could ever say that, but Vox has an ok explanation for it youtube.com/watch?v=v7xmkzVU29Q There are more detailed articles on normal newsletters, just one of them: ft.com/content/e92dbf94-d9a2-11e9-8f9b-7..
2020-02-19 14:06
So with your logik my friend , how EU nations have free healthcare and Murica Can’t . Muricans have health issues and go to hospital more ?? Or maybe .... maybe the numbers don’t tell the truth ....
2020-02-20 07:37
Yes, all nations, their history and their conditions are different, that's why the same policies succeed in one country and fail in another. Read the article or watch the video from #85.
2020-02-20 15:21
#45
 | 
Canada $t4Rboy 
Charging your 1% proper taxes - instead of catering to the billionaires like Trump, his cronies, and history has. That's a tough one. Imagine telling a Billionaire instead of US$4 Billion earned this year, he's going to make US$1.5 Billion. I'm sure his life will be spun upside down... That US$2.5 Billion extra would go along way for things like this. It's funny how the rest of the developed world has universal healthcare. But naysayers t othe idea think that the US is doing things right? Lol. 26-yr-old dies rationing insulin because he couldn't afford the high cost-per-vial. snopes.com/fact-check/alex-smith-died-co.. To put it into perspective, insulin-per-vial costs 1/10th in Canada what it does in the USA. AT $320/vial (US) vs. $32/vial (Canada). This man would [most likely] still be alive if he had access to proper medication at an affordable rate. Instead? The US caters to pharmaceutical conglomerates. What a backwards medievalist country.
2020-02-19 08:31
#61
Hutler | 
Finland Qurko 
"$320/vial (US) vs. $32/vial (Canada)" yikes US wtf is this? pretty sure if you have diabetes here you get it for free
2020-02-19 11:14
#62
 | 
Australia sad_faze_fan 
actually true =(((((
2020-02-19 11:17
i don't need you narratives and sad stories. i don't ask you whether there is a problem with health care or not, i ask you how you are going to solve the problem. It's great that you hate billionaires and don't respect your political opponents, you are very cool and trendy, but annual health expenditures are about $3.6 trillion, and annual federal budget is only slightly higher (about $4 trillion). Increasing property taxes and increasing taxes on rich people won't raise federal revenues enough, and I don't even talk that most of the billionaires you hate so much will just leave your country, read about "Hollande's tax".
2020-02-19 11:27
biggest problem is that the companies are straight up scamming their citizens and theyre taking it like good little peasants
2020-02-19 11:51
#83
 | 
Canada $t4Rboy 
Revolution 2.0 ;)
2020-02-19 12:27
Nope. Biggest issue is other nations not following us patents so in order to recoup costs they overcharge in the one place that does follow them. If you all actually wanted to fix healthcare prices you would urge your governments to abide by US patents for at least a decade after they are made in the US, then there'd be more medications at lower prices. Y'all don't actually give a rats ass about it you'll just use it as an "America bad. Europe good" talking point. Y'all are full of immense amounts of BS.
2020-02-20 13:29
#122
 | 
Sweden xhamag24 
You should be happy they spend money on their military otherwise you would speak german
2020-02-20 17:05
#2
Boombl4 | 
Brazil ricca 
free healthcare in brazil is shit 😫
2020-02-17 12:29
well... that goes for the whole country. *edit* sounds worse than I meant. My point: I can't think of anything that is working really well in Brazil right now.
2020-02-17 12:41
#10
Boombl4 | 
Brazil ricca 
so sad 😥
2020-02-17 13:13
#5
 | 
Brazil TaxIsTHEFT 
njothing is free, bro. there is no free lunch...
2020-02-17 12:50
Paid healthcare is not that good either.
2020-02-18 22:18
ye cuz brazil xD
2020-02-19 11:51
#4
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
America used to be a great place before the government got involved. We need to abolish government and return to our roots and implement the ideas of the founding fathers. America should be the beacon of prosperity it once was, late 19th century early 20th century. You dont get that by confiscating tax money and guns. America doesn't need a government to fix climate change and impose rules that will undermine its competitivity, its needs a strong private sector that can come up with innovative ways to tackle climate change.
2020-02-17 12:48
#6
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
It has a strong private sector that was so far come up with only ideas to further carbon emissions- the point is that whats economically viable isn't always the best option. A government is meant to assist the people without babysitting the people, it's meant to ensure benefits beyond economic benefits, such as environmental benefits, or fighting poverty. Abolishing government will just lead to an out of control, corporation ran hierarchy, in essence, a dictatorship run by business. America needs to fix its government and get it's priorities straight, not abolish it and let the people suffer consequently.
2020-02-17 12:54
#9
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
No, eventhough Trump withdrew from the paris climate accord carbon emissions actually went down instead of up thanks to the private sector and ordinary citizens. If you really want to fix climate change you should subsidise windmills and solar panels, you should let the private sector find out what the best option is. People will come to realisation that they cant further profits if they destroy the environment as well, therefore they will opt for whats environmentally viable as well.
2020-02-17 13:12
#12
 | 
Canada ProvexPyker 
I doubt they care one bit about the environment at this point.
2020-02-17 15:58
#13
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
But they can further profits destroying the environment until the environment is gone? And it's not a matter if respawning, when it's gone, it's gone, every species that goes extinct is extinct. Leaving it down to people and the private sector caused this whole mess and is proven unreliable, we need some tough change now, also subsidizing solar is not a good idea, we need solutions like nuclear (which i can get into in depth)
2020-02-17 19:07
#19
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
If the environment is gone then their profits would be 0 so ofc they dont want that to happen that would be bad business
2020-02-18 10:22
#32
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
They'll use the environment until they can profit no longer, at that point it's gone. Like how they'll try and use coal until it's no longer, but then the damage is done and they'll be destroying antarctica for it
2020-02-18 21:21
#40
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Why then are companies for example planting more trees in the US than cutting them down rn? Are you sure there is no interest in preserving some aspects of the environment? Preserving for us ofc I doubt neither of us think we should be subserviant to environment xd
2020-02-19 07:25
#49
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
The implication wasn’t that all corporations are using the environment, non-profits exist ofc, but non-profits aren’t enough. Coal is still being burnt, electric cars are far from ready to fully implement, habitats are still being destroyed, climate change is a timed issue and the government is currently the only power that can realistically make such imminent change. Coal companies aren’t going to throw away their entire income, and it is very profitable. Also, we have left the environment to individuals and look what happened. Turning a light off a bit earlier isn’t going to save the planet at this point and the odds we should give up technology and the essence of modern life to fix it is inane
2020-02-19 09:30
#59
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
For profit corporations are also preserving the environment (for example the tree one I just gave) Why? BEcause they too need the environment? Why do we want to protect environment? Because WE the people like the environment for ourselves we like to walk in them, hunt in it, use it for our benefits and we pay good money for it so no companies have no interest in completely destroying the environment
2020-02-19 11:05
#86
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
They don't need the environment. We [ay good money for our electricity, which is ruining the environment, I pay good money for an iPhone for example, which is made by slaves in China working illegal overtime, I'm not endorsing that behavior. We are self-centred, and whilst people won't choose to destroy all of the environment, corporations aren't people. Corporations haven't balanced out the consequences yet, is it really suitable to hope they will do it in due time, rather than using the state for it's intended purpose, particularly when climate change is a ticking time bomb and every minute we procrastinate is more damage done?
2020-02-19 19:21
#92
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Would you think we should get rid of electricity to say keep the climat 1 degree colder and to save say 1000 species of some animal (who btw are not people)
2020-02-20 07:24
No? That is quite literally my point? We shouldn't stop buying electricity, but the only way we are going to get clean electricity is via the government because it's more of an environmental issue than an economic one. The government can care about the environment, corperations, their priority is money.
2020-02-20 12:10
#103
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
If not by the power of the market how do you expect people to go to green? U are not suggesting government to force free corporations to work as the gov pleases right?
2020-02-20 12:25
I'm suggesting logical measures taken up, such as ensuring trees are lanted, regulating deforestation, and building thorium reactors (the best, cheapest and most efficient way to create electricity and replace fossil fuels but that's a whole different discussion). It's obvious what the government can do, it's not forced, it's using its own power, resources, implementing carbon tax etc. Also, this is about big carbon emitters going green, rather than individuals or whatever, who must be trusted but can't be trusted.
2020-02-20 12:40
#109
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
I think the only logical way to make big emitters go green is to create a demand rather than compulsion
2020-02-20 12:43
How would you suggest we do that?
2020-02-20 12:44
#117
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Us the consumers need to prefer green corporations over the non greens, if we dont then thats fine aswell and means that its not that big of a deal for us
2020-02-20 13:54
So once again, we are blindly putting our faith in the consumers? People like good, cheap products, and right now it's not just cheaper for corporations to use environmentally negative methods, the products are also selling just as well. Climate change needs to be fixed ASAP, and consumers won't all shift their lives immediately- history shows us that, and climate change isn't a new issue. You are exaggerating the impact an individual consumer has, as they are an individual- society isn't a collective group making a collective decision, and if it ever is that's via the government. Also, climate change is more of an environmental issue than a social issue, and most social impacts won't even be in the developed nations dictating the creation of these products and spawning the customers buying them, which in itself invalidates the 'trust consumers and corps' idea
2020-02-20 17:00
#124
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
If we the people dont want to do anything about climate then we dont
2020-02-20 19:42
It's not direct, the suggested solution is not buying certain products, and another part is that it's a lot of small change that makes big change- you, individually, can do, however much you try, very little. Things greater than people, the government and corporations, they can do so much more. Your point doesn't really make much sense in relation to mine
2020-02-20 21:55
#126
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Government and corporations are just individuals aswel. If you think we the people want to fix climate so bad why dont you run for office and win in a landslide?
2020-02-21 08:50
Believe it or not most people do not want to run a government. And actually, no, corporations are not people, and neither is the government l, they are tools ran by people with much much more power than any individual, such as the ability to create new thorium based reactors and implement a carbon tax etc. The government isn’t a person and shouldn’t be considered as such. Corporations aren’t people and do not have human motives. Corporations also have more impact than any person, and if you look at how economics works within these companies one person cannot do whatever the fuck they want. Even the CEO relies on others for his wealth, the corporation and the ceo are different
2020-02-21 09:06
#128
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Our entire governmental structure runs on the idea that government consists of us men and women, and are limited thinking of how men will govern other men so ofc its about humans governing other humans and ofcourse its structured so. Furthermore as we pick our representatives again I ask you if we care about fixing the climate so much why didnt we choose to elect those who will and in regards of companies if we truly care most about climate and not say the quality and price of the product then why doesnt our consumer data reflect that?
2020-02-21 09:17
By the way, carbon tax, that's not compulsory but we will see the benefits, and regulation is necessary and definitely reasonable to suggest when considering corporations.
2020-02-20 12:45
#116
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
If you find a good justification for it then sure, maybe claiming its polluting the air too much might make sense. Just dont tax much in order not to kill business
2020-02-20 13:53
What needs to be done with the carbon tax is exemptions on companies which either decrease their carbon emission rates by a high amount or had them very low in the first place. The tax shouldn't be flat, so we can have it relatively low for companies which are decreasing their rates or have low rates, but high enough for it to be more economically efficient to replace greenhouse gas emitting production methods rather than pay the tax.
2020-02-20 16:56
There are things that need a good government. Like education. You should have the opportunity to get the same education like everybody else, no matter how much money your parents make.
2020-02-17 15:56
#16
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
Competition will reduce the price and improve the quality. Private schools > public schools
2020-02-18 10:06
So if your parents can't afford private schools, what can you do about it?
2020-02-18 10:40
#25
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
They pay less tax and then they can
2020-02-18 12:21
you can't afford a private school with minimum wage. And you are probably against minimum wage as well.
2020-02-18 13:00
Only true in dreams. In the real world sooner or later mega corporations come along and fuck competition in the ass
2020-02-18 12:05
#26
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
Ok, nice point you're making there !
2020-02-18 12:21
Naivest shit i have ever seen. All the responsiblity dumped on corporations. This is some religion-like delusion
2020-02-17 19:16
#17
 | 
Netherlands Im_gaaayyy 
We have corporate welfare right now, with the government bailing out banks and indefinite quantitative easing. It only benefits corporations, not ordinary citizens
2020-02-18 10:08
That is true although I believe solution is weaker corporations, not stronger
2020-02-18 12:55
#50
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
That’s the government being incompetent and self serving, as per usual. But corporations we no different, and the government is more likely to change
2020-02-19 09:32
forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/2.. ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-te.. And drug testing people on welfare might bring in some money in the blue states that declare it to be illegal. I do agree that we aren't the world's police force and I would like one politician to get us the fuck out of the middle east without completely destabilizing it. Don't even get me started on education, I have no idea how to solve that clusterfuck.
2020-02-17 13:06
decent basic education for everyone = less crime, less drug abuse and just less stupidity in general
2020-02-18 10:27
Afaik we are the main factor why these regions became unstabalized
2020-02-19 11:31
Yes I am aware the point is just packing up and leaving would also lead to destabilization. So we need to gradually pull out, like Obama was talking about and like Trump had started to do, but I doubt it will happen on a grand scale. Too many interests.
2020-02-19 11:43
Yea true, the damage is already done and there is no easy way out anymore
2020-02-19 11:45
usa be like: nani
2020-02-18 12:57
#42
 | 
Sweden GeT_CoRrEcT 
"Free" health care sounds good on the surface but the truth is that it's very ineffective. For years people have been dying while waiting for treatment or any for of help because the lines in the ER has been full. People are dying of cancer and sepsis etc for no reason other than an exhausted system.
2020-02-19 07:50
#51
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
Maybe in Sweden, not in the UK. We have prioritised queue’s putting those who need it first and the NHS is going well, America is the richest country in the planet so if anyone can afford it it is them
2020-02-19 09:33
#55
 | 
Sweden GeT_CoRrEcT 
We also have the highest tax rate in the world, so what do we get for the money that we spend? Answer: Gender studies and social experiments
2020-02-19 09:44
#57
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
And that’s Sweden for you
2020-02-19 09:49
you get muslims
2020-02-20 08:05
#105
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
You didnt exactly disprove my point You claimed that in Britain nobody dies on waiting lines never said US was better Just disproved your claim
2020-02-20 12:27
I didn't say no one dies in waiting lines, I said waiting lines were a small price to pay and that universal healthcare is better, so as long as it is that's what matters. We have many issues with the NHS right now, including the tory's not funding it properly
2020-02-20 12:44
#115
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
What he said: "People are dying of cancer and sepsis etc for no reason other than an exhausted system." What you said "Maybe in Sweden, not in the UK"
2020-02-20 13:52
Ok, well I meant it was a minor issue, not that notable (the issue with waiting lines is mostly not death) and not a result of universal healthcare (as stated in the article, we are seeing INCREASES in waiting line deaths and the length of waiting lines- is this the fault of a concept which has been in practice for decades, or a conservative government and underfunding which started back in 2010)
2020-02-20 16:52
No thx
2020-02-19 07:52
I'm too lazy, is the PEHP thing of flying people over true? Around 7:32 in the video.
2020-02-19 08:17
#46
allu | 
Sweden Draden 
Medicare for all would save money. It would raise public taxes, but eliminate the private "tax" that you pay to your health insurance company and therefore remove an unnecessary middleman.
2020-02-19 08:34
#53
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
Also, it taxes those who can afford it, rather than insurance which is essentially a non-mandatory flat wealth tax which many can’t afford, consequently compromising their survival or at least health. Medicare for all taxes those who can afford it for the greater good
2020-02-19 09:35
#80
 | 
Brazil Bene_Tleilax 
Assuming the quality of public healthcare is the same of private healthcare AND that there will actually wont be lines. That's a whole lot of wishful thinking.
2020-02-19 11:57
#88
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
How am I assuming the quality would be equal or that there wouldn't be lines? I'm saying queues are a small price to pay for universal healthcare, and prioritized lines are ideal, plus private healthcare shouldn't be banned
2020-02-19 19:24
#90
 | 
Brazil Bene_Tleilax 
They are not a small price at all, they are THE price to pay
2020-02-19 19:51
#99
NiKo | 
United Kingdom ExCeL1234 
Yes, and a small one. ?
2020-02-20 12:08
#123
allu | 
Sweden Draden 
Also, let's not pretend that waiting lines don't exist in their current system
2020-02-20 18:36
#106
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Yeah that Sanders video was debunked but nt
2020-02-20 12:28
#70
mertz | 
Denmark V1tus 
Move to Denmark for free Healthcare
2020-02-19 11:39
What the fuck people putting economic basis instead health.... #medicareforall
2020-02-19 19:27
#96
 | 
Sweden GeT_CoRrEcT 
medicareforswedes? medicareforelsalvador? medicareforcanada? medicareforaustralia? medicareforafghanistan? It's not your country, why do you get to decide how they should run their own country? They medical plan doesn't affect you or me or anyone else except the ones living in the US, and we don't.
2020-02-20 07:47
#97
 | 
Canada ProvexPyker 
#VoteForBernie #MedicareForAll
2020-02-20 07:58
FURIA
1.56
MIBR
2.49
SKADE
1.48
Salamander
2.53
mousesports
1.07
TYLOO
8.80
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.