Album Rating: 5.0

thats what u get for that lousy rating

Album Rating: 5.0

i can afford to get broken from low ratings cause i get free health care

Wow, dem, that was kinda shitty.

Album Rating: 5.0

dam idk i was just messin i never aim to offend im never srs

Well, it is not just you, demi. I have been noticing lately people saying pretty callous shit (joking or no).

Album Rating: 5.0

america came to the gunfight with a nuke, so bringing a gun wouldn't have helped.



that's good news, fourth, can't imagine life without being able to do either of those things.

Album Rating: 5.0

sry ill show myself to the exit

Album Rating: 5.0

don't go!!!

Album Rating: 5.0

W/e free healthcare would be sweet if it was well implemented. fucking fuckers in america charged me (not joking) 25 dollars for fucking two dollars worth of hotel-sample esque toiletries that I thought were fucking complimentary and I'm still fucking pissed.

Album Rating: 5.0

I'm down with capitalism for most areas of the economy.



The thing is, capitalism inarguably drives up prices for healthcare. The wholesale cost of most medication is very affordable, but insurance companies and R&D firms can charge exorbitant amounts for it because it's an absolute necessity. My grandma blew through her entire life savings in the years leading up to her death to pay for pretty generic cancer treatment (although cystic fibrosis, a complication from the radiation treatment, is what ended up killing her).



To me it's no different than other social services we take for granted, i.e. police, fire department, etc. If something provides a clear and present danger to someone's health, they should be taken care of, costs be damned. We can afford it. I don't buy that the country with the most capital in the world can't afford to pay for the most unfortunate among us.

Album Rating: 5.0

But yes, I totally understand that the healthcare wouldn't be 'free', I was just using the common vernacular for universal

coverage. Obviously it would have to be paid for, but I feel that more regulations on what health insurance companies can

charge would offset the costs at least somewhat. And it's not as if the government doesn't grossly overspend in other

areas where there's frankly no need for it.



to further a previous point, the fact that taking care of your health is a necessity is what differentiates it from other

expenditures. You can choose not to buy a television, new car, w/e, but you can't just not get emergency care, or even

potentially life-saving preventative care for you and your family. We have the wealth to make sure people don't die or

become seriously ill when it's preventable, and to me it's sad that we haven't made that a priority.

Album Rating: 5.0

why does the formatting get so fucked up when I edit?

#welcome2sputnik #modsurslackingoffsohrd

Maybe they are on coffee break.

Album Rating: 5.0

doin the sputnik stutter

Album Rating: 5.0

yeah, but I mean real socialism doesn't actually exist. Every country utilizes normative economics to some extent.

Album Rating: 4.0

Your huge misassumption is that we "have the wealth to pay for it", the rich already pay an overwhelmingly progressiveincome tax in the us, Tax increases on the upper and middle class will kill jobs, it already has.



This particular healthcare bill is meant to force people on plans that they don't need for the profit of insurance companies. As a token tribute they will throw the people some breadcrumbs and cover the uninsured who will then vote for them.



Universal healthcare might work in an ideal government, but that is another huge misassumption, as you admitted yourself they "waste". - more like steal- money, trillions, on tons of things.

Album Rating: 4.0

Thanks dawg

Album Rating: 2.0

d'aww

Album Rating: 5.0

@LambsBread Hahahaha buddy let's not pretend that rich people of the United States don't have it a hell of a lot easier than essentially any other developed country. That's a joke and you know it.



That job creation argument is entry-level house republican shit, and it's been soundly refuted. I'd be happy to link you to any number of studies that bear that out, but it doesn't make any intuitive sense either.



The health of a nation is a reflection of the health of it's populace. Distributing the wealth brings the lowest-income portion of the population, who are the one's who truly suffer because of their lack of means, to a level which allows them to pursue the path that's most productive on an individual level, and therefore the most productive for the nation as a whole. Keep in mind that people are born into these conditions more often than not.



Capitalism is a system that inherently sees people suffer, Socialism and Communism are systems that at least attempt to address that suffering. Capitalism is the easiest system to implement in it's purest form, because there is very little government involvement. It's lazy. In a world filled with good people, Socialism would (and I would argue is, since most people are good) CLEARLY be the preferred form of government. Selfish people will frequently argue that without money as a motivator, people will be less inclined to reach their potential. Maybe that's so for some, but the majority of people, if given a fair opportunity (which capitalism simply does not provide for a large percentage of the population), would contribute positively to the world because it makes the world a better place. Call it hippy idealism if you want, but what the fuck are we even here for if we aren't striving for an ideal?