So let me get this straight, democrats think Facebook should factcheck posts, but CNN and the liberal media can report whatever lies they want?

@BlueMetalChick 😂🤣😅😆 where did you here that? On Facebook 😂🤣😅😆

@gregloa No, and I don't use Facebook. But if you'd like to explain why you think I'm wrong instead of just bullshitting at me, I'm all ears.

@BlueMetalChick I have no idea why you think you are wrong. 😂🤣😅😆

@BlueMetalChick Being a corporation doesn't exclude you from being liberal or left-wing. Your beliefs and the beliefs you push are what determine where you sit on the political spectrum, not the amount of money or influence you have.

@gregloa I'm asking why you think I heard this on Facebook.

@SW-User The amount of money you receive from the incumbent government definitely influences your beliefs. Since the government is not liberal, neither are the media outlets that receive money from supporting it.

@BlueMetalChick 😂🤣😅😆 are you sure you’re not asking me why you think you heard that on Facebook?😂🤣😅😆

@BlueMetalChick The amount of money CNN receives from the incumbent government is not even close to the amount of money given to the network by private donors that support a liberal cause. Plus, there is a two-party system in the government where half of would be considered liberal and the other conservative.

@gregloa I already told you I don't use Facebook.

@SW-User That would be true if the private benefactors actually did support a liberal agenda but they don't. They support a neoliberal corporate agenda. They're nominally liberal with things like legalizing marijuana or gay marriage but the rest of that platform, like universal education, non-interventionist, or socialized medicine are hated by those benefactors.

I don’t either @BlueMetalChick

@gregloa I'm waiting for you to explain to me what you think is incorrect about my statement about CNN. Get to the point, you're boring me.

@BlueMetalChick I'm not sure we have been seeing or talking about the same people, because a lot of those causes are the exact things that they champion. The reason they might not champion other things is because of the huge socialist price tag that comes with things like healthcare. It's not like that shit is free.

@SW-User No, it's not free, but it's cheaper than what we have now. We currently have an individual mandate healthcare system, which was invented by Richard Nixon and came to national attention when George H. W. Bush was president. Barack Obama implemented individual mandate during his presidency as a compromise between the two parties. It's more expensive than a single-payer option, hence why America spends so much more money on healthcare than other similarly developed nations.

@BlueMetalChick cnn has been sucking democrats d cks for decades!!! Everyone knows that.

@gregloa And? That further proves my point. Most of the Democratic Party is corporate as fuck, they're elitist centrist idiots. Sure they're marginally liberal by supporting legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, but that's about it. They oppose almost all other liberal ideas.

@BlueMetalChick That about sums up my feelings of the Liberal Party of Canada when in reality they are probably left of the Democrats.

@SW-User Are you Canadian? I'm not nearly so knowledgeable about Canadian politics.

@BlueMetalChick That statistic about us spending more on healthcare than other developed nations is a misleading statistic.
1. We have more people in our country that almost the entire whole of Europe.
2. We spend more on healthcare innovation than any other country.
3. We have higher rates of obesity and heart disease that cause massive amounts of spending on healthcare.
4. Out gang violence problems in urban areas contribute to U.S. taxpayers and hospitals footing the bill for gangbangers and their victims that are shot and taken to the hospital with no insurance.
5. The U.S. is the largest drug-consuming nation on the planet, with far higher number of death from drugs than other developed nations.

There are a lot of reasons for the spending on healthcare, but the spending comes more from our society being fat, disgusting, and violent than the system itself. We have the worst of both worlds with this system, but allowing people the ability to get their own insurance is less-costly in other countries. In fact, other than the UK, France and other European healthcare systems actually are more similar to our own than to the universal model being proposed.

@SW-User Eh, they're left on social issues but on the economics they're pure status quo. Even on social issues they don't push anywhere new, just endorse shit a plurality already support.

@BlueMetalChick Trust me you're better off at this point, lol

@SW-User 1. We spend both more as a country and more per person as any other nation so our larger population is not responsible for the higher cost.
2. Despite spending more on healthcare innovation we still have worse health outcomes.
3. More people die in the USA specifically from a lack of access to healthcare than any other nation.
4. The USA also spends more for prescription drugs than any other nation despite producing many of them.

We do spend a lot on healthcare from being fat disgusting and violent but the fact remains that privatized health insurance is still the largest reason for it. Everyone already agrees that some institutions should not be privatized, such as the police and fire departments, or public infrastructure like roads, bridges, and the power grid. Healthcare is one of those things. It's not a consumer product, meaning the virtue of free market incentivizing competition to create a better good or service doesn't apply.

@BlueMetalChick No, that's where we differ. Healthcare IS a consumer product. The government has the responsibility to defend the country from outside threats, enforce law and protect life. It does not, however, have the responsibility to give everyone healthcare. On your points:
1. The larger population actually DOES have something to do with it, mainly due to those that can afford the healthcare also paying for those that already can't through current systems of government subsidies that are crashing the healthcare system.
2. The worse healthcare outcomes statistic comes from the level of deaths due mainly to gang violence and obesity.
3. Sorry they're dead, but I have myself to worry about and I don't feel like paying up to 60% of my paycheck to give healthcare access to people that otherwise wouldn't be working hard enough or making good enough decisions to be able to afford private insurance in the first place.
4. Agreed, and that's being addressed.

@SW-User We provide other public services which don't fit under that category. Having a publicly funded electric grid and system of roads doesn't enforce law, protect life, or defend from outside threats and yet we do it anyway. There are certain things which are so basic that the country has come to the agreement that it should not be denied to anyone even if they're too poor to afford it. If going to the doctor when you're sick or the hospital when you're injured isn't a basic need then I don't know what is.

And even then, you included "protecting life" in responsibilities of the government. Healthcare doesn't protect life? Really?

1. The larger population may contribute to it but it is not the main contributor. The additional costs of healthcare which are created by private insurance companies is the main contributor. Which makes sense, because they're doing it to make money. It's a private company that's attempting to make a profit which costs both the government and the citizens more money. Why should that company be making extra money off of the state and the people?
2. Deaths due to violence are not counted under deaths from lack of access to healthcare. Obesity perhaps, as that does cause all sorts of adverse health affects.
3. You wouldn't be paying 60% of your paycheck on healthcare. Your taxes would go up, but you'd also no longer have to pay any premiums, any co-pays, or any deductibles. In a sense, your public tax would be raised but your private tax would disappear completely, meaning when all is said and done, you're paying less money than before, and you have complete coverage. No longer would you have to choose "plans" which protect you from some possibilities but not others.

@BlueMetalChick Guess what? If you can't afford to pay for electricity, it gets shut off. The highway system was also a task undertaken by the federal government to move military equipment from one side of the country to the other. The federal government actually holds stake in the roads, as well as the power grid when it comes to defense of the nation. The government also has the ability to funnel money into the healthcare system in times of crisis to ensure that supplies and care don't run out for the wounded. They're not, however, responsible for making sure that if you have a cold, that you get the right treatment. Doctors are a service to the community, not a right that you can just demand on the spot. I've lived in countries where their healthcare system is the pipe dream that you're talking about, and it's ridiculous. Immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East flood the system and overwhelm the hospitals, all while not paying any taxes into the system. This causes the actual residents of the country to end up going to private doctors on their own dime, even while paying for the freeloaders to get taken care of. I'm sorry, but I don't give a shit if people without a job or without any resources get taken care of. Make better decisions in your life.