General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "BROKEN Healthcare System Leads To Very Painful Anesthesia-Free Surgery" video.

@blackflagsnroses6013 , the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. There were no federal income taxes until that same time.
4
@zidneya , you have a right to bear arms if you choose to buy one yourself. You have the right to pursue healthcare if you pay for it. But you don't have a right to force others to serve you.
4
And people are shocked with what other nations put up with. In other nations people deal through major pain on waiting lists for issues like these where some even die. Every healthcare system has flaws. Kyle has to point to this one story to prove a point when you can find cases like this everywhere.
3
@Airith4 , because people here don't like to look outside their bubble.
3
It is not a right.
3
And this is why you won't get M4A because your arguments suck.
2
@DarksiderDarmoset , rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. So no, healthcare is not a right.
2
@zidneya , you don't have a right to privacy, education and police protection. So what's your point?
2
@praxis4375 , yes, you do have a right to demand single payer healthcare. When did I say you can't?
2
C W , rights are things the government cannot take away without due process. So right to life means government cannot take away life without due process. Law is clearly not your strong point.
2
@DarksiderDarmoset , not they don't. Also, rights in the US, besides a right to a trial by jury, are not offered by the government. Freedom of speech means the government cannot punish me for exercising my free speech. It does not require government to give me anything. Healthcare requires goods and services, there is the difference.
2
@henrygustav7948 https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2019/01/03/new_study_championing_medicare_for_all_is_bogus_110854.html UMass is, as Prof. Jonathan Gruber puts it, is taking advantage of useful idiots with that "study".
1
@MM-du7je , you don't have a right to a cop or firefighters' services. Also, those programs are ran locally, are a drop in a bucket in terms of costs, and 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , saying M4A will save money is simply flaw. I feel you are trying to respond to me. To start, that "opinion piece" cited other studies. If it is wrong than point out where. And Bernie is just a politician. He has a motive. But let us get to cost. On the one that says it will save $2 million they are assuming an immediate 40% pay cut, you can't predict what will happen to access and quality. Look at the 6 minute mark here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y&t=376s You can't just throw out a number and expect it to mean anything. You also can't just change our healthcare system that much and not expect changes. As for the PERI study, it has several flaws. As pointed out in that article one is overhead cost. They claim medicare has lower overhead cost. Problem is that Medicare passes many costs onto other agencies like the CDC and IRS. Also, Medicare funds for older people who require more healthcare and thus more of their spending will go towards healthcare. Compare it to this, say you spend $3,000 a month and I spend $2,000 a month. And say I spend $1000 on rent and you spend $1000 on rent. Yes, you spend a smaller portion of your income on rent but you pay more as a whole. Next, that study factors in people losing their jobs and having to move to find new ones. The numbers they show appear to be made up. They assume that the market will not change. If you force people to leave one area and move to another prices will change. People's homes prices will drop causing them to lose on their investment and the places they move two will see an increase in home pricing. Also, they don't factor in the psychological aspect of moving. I am facing that right now in considering a job in a different state. I am content and comfortable with where I am at. Moving is difficult to some, and harder for those with kids. But that PERI study treats people as pawns. As for the Rational National, I have watched him and he is worse than Kyle. You see, I actually read these sources and break them down. I just don't dismiss them. But back to Bernie being another politician, that is what he is. He is a politician with a motive. And that PERI study is done by people who, as Jonathan Gruber put it, are taking advantage of useful idiots. I suggest you dig deeper and develop a strong argument.
1
@henrygustav7948 , still waiting for a peer reviewed paper
1
@henrygustav7948 a none peer reviewed nor published study. Also, what is wrong with the article i posted? Notice how i actually broke down the study you posted and just didn't dismiss it? Are you really that shallow?
1
@henrygustav7948 , ok, and? What is wrong with the article? You are pulling a logical fallacy now.
1
@marcusplenty1153 , I have said many times that climate change is happening. I have pushed people to read Mike Hulme's book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change", an individual with a PhD in applied climatology and worked for the IPCC. Healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and develop any ranking they want. This is a problem with the far left. Instead of having an actual argument on the issues they just dismiss counter arguments. Tell me, do you even know how those rankings were developed? I doubt it. And why are none of those rankings from academic sources? Why are they from special interest groups? Doctors earn so much because of their skill set and the fact they have to pay for malpractice insurance. And even if we subsidized education every medical school has a less than 50% acceptance rate. So the supply of doctors will still be low causing their prices to go up.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , he got rich pushing for M4A. He recently made a million off of a book. And instead of donating that money he pocketed it.
1
Jason H , that is CA. In some areas fire fighters are private and in others they are volunteer. It all depends on the state.
1
@horrorfan24 , in the UK people are going blind because they refuse to offer eye surgery.
1
@henrygustav7948 , how do they have no credibility? Just dismissing them is not an argument. You have to break it down where they are wrong. Not doing so shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
1
Picking one story does not represent the norm. You can do that in any healthcare system. Take this story for example https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html
1
@SarahLibogomalove , define "normal". Cases like these happen in all nations. Every nation has shortcomings in their system. I am all for improving it but Kyle has to point to one story to push his propaganda.
1
@zidneya , people suffer in every nation due to lack of healthcare.
1
ryne green , sure, that is an argument. But there is a reason why the US has the highest survival rates, people get care quickly.
1
gothicman03 , I never said that.
1
@omagaonion613 , I actually support some kind of public option as long as the states run it. My ideal healthcare system would be a free market system where local communities, either through charities or local governments, fill in the gaps.
1
@jtmv8915 , those are individual stories, you can find them anywhere.
1
@nickmathiason2917 , I didn't say they all equally sucked. They all have advantages and disadvantages.
1
@trollloloololooo , than why do people die on waiting lists?
1
@carldean3159 , to answer your question, yes when time is limited. Also, in the US they do give care based on need. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/ The thing is that what do you consider to be a "need". That is subjective in many ways. I can argue the woman in this story does not need that care, especially if the doctor takes priority over me in care. You say to do actual research, I have. I bet I have researched this way more than you. But what do you want me to read? Here, I will give you a suggestion. Read the book "In Excellent Health" by Prof. Scott Atlas. You see, I actually gave you something to read as opposed to telling you to do research and giving you talking points.
1
Zel Zwrd and while they wait they end up worse off or even dying. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1555622
1
@adithyasathya2578 , a public option should not be the main source for people. It should be a last resort and thus of low quality. I used a public option for a STD check up one time in my city. It was low cost but the service sucked. I went to one building to answer questions and the had to take a form to another building and waited 5 hours before I went to pee in a cup and get blood drawn. A year later I used my insurance and went to a private option and within 30 minutes I drove there, signed in, peed in a cup, got blood drawn, and was at home eating breakfast. If I were to have paid out of pocket I would have cost more but would have been better. The public option should be a last resort. We should encourage people to get better and not depend on the government. Also, with a free market system drug and healthcare prices will drop. A major problem we have is that people don't actually pay for healthcare. Let me ask you this. Why do so many employers pay their employees with healthcare as opposed to a higher wage? And why does healthcare insurance pay for all of healthcare? The main reason is because of the payroll tax. If we did not have that than people will pay for healthcare insurance out of pocket. At that healthcare insurance will be insurance and will pay for only unplanned, expensive cases. Everything else would be paid for out of pocket. So in my STD checkup case, I can shop around and find the cheapest option. With transparent pricing and me deciding where I can go the price will drop. And the price of insurance will drop as all it will pay for is unplanned, expensive cases. The public option can differ by area, but essentially with the private market lowering prices the public option can be in many forms. It can either be a government run service with low quality like I experienced. Or it can be, for people below a certain income level, similar to food stamps where the government pays for certain things. The free market in food has allowed for food prices to be low and to be a lot of food available. I don't support the Canada's system as it forces the local areas to establish something. I see no difference between that and a centralized system. And as we have seen in programs like the Community Mental Health Act the states will simply refuse and force the federal government to pick up the system. As for your criticisms of my system 1. There won't be a pool. The free market will drive down costs. The government either picks up the tab for low income people or offer a service that is of low quality. Ever been in line for food stamps? The line is long. Or the post office, the service sucks. This whole "risk pool" thing is a flawed argument. A lot of healthcare can be paid for out of pocket to begin with. The whole "risk pool" idea is a major thought process to have in healthcare. It is what Obamacare was designed on and it has shown to fail 2. This happens anyway. In mental health if you are a psychologist and work in a rural area for 10 years you get your student loan paid off, all of it. Why? Because they lack doctors in those area. Rural areas lack resources to begin with. Just because the federal government says they will provide something doesn't mean they can't. If no one wants to work in a certain area they won't. Or to get them to they have to raise the incentive, such as paying them more which will end up costing M4A even more. Fact is those areas are simply use to limited resources. One major problem I have with the far left is that they are on the outside looking in and don't realize people in certain areas don't want your help. But as a whole, M4A won't solve this problem unless you pay a lot of money. 3. It depends on the area. In rural areas, where I am from, local charities were fine. In more urban areas maybe not. Again, it depends. That is why I want the local communities to decide on their own. There are many ways to approach this. 4. Insurance companies counter the inelastic nature of some forms of healthcare. Other forms are not inelastic. Compare it to a car. Oil changes and new tires are necessary to keep the car safe. Insurance does not cover that as you can shop around. But if a tree falls on your car insurance will cover that. That is not planned and you don't have time to shop around. Healthcare insurance should be the same. Problem is that healthcare insurance in this nation, since a lot of people receive insurance as a form of payment, covers almost all of healthcare which creates many problems and high prices. So the inelastic argument is poor as insurance is the counter for that. 5. The private sector has far less bureaucracies and people can decide which doctors they want
1
@ScyphKordan , what you said is 100% false. No doctor or nurse can stop a life saving procedure.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , if you want to play that game almost everyone I talked to like the US system. And every Canadian I talk to loves the US system as well and hates the Canadian system.
1
Prophet , what should I research?
1
@Luna_otVM , than why do people die in other nations waiting for "elective" surgery such as "elective" heart surgery?
1
@Luna_otVM , if Kyle wants better healthcare than he needs to dig deeper. How come he doesn't read stuffy by Prof. Scott Atlas or Katherine Baicker such as this? http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf To improve something you have to look at the whole issue and both sides of the situation. .Kyle does not do that. He looks at a handful of stats and spews the same talking points over and over again. He has no real argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl_2J391hZc&t=590s Fast forward to the 8:50 mark. The reality is that Kyle feels under M4A that we will have the same quality but at a lower price that the government pays for it. You can't say that. Reality is something has to give. Just like under Obamacare people lost their healthcare insurance, something will change. Also, Kyle claims M4A is popular but it does not pass. Reality is that on the surface it may be popular but when you show the tax rates and show how healthcare as people know it changes, it is no longer popular. Maybe M4A is a better system, but you have to have an honest conversation here. You have to look at the full story and not just cherry pick it. I find it scary how I come here and gives links to many studies and suggest many books and people just dismiss them. You follow Kyle who is not an expert here and when I point people to actual experts I get dismissed As the title of the video I linked said, people are afraid of democratic socialist because, despite their shallow ideas, they will win elections which will harm our nation.
1
@texkillerson6681 , In Canada they banned private options until a lawsuit came out because the public option was overcrowded.
1
@jtmv8915 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html There is one in the UK
1
Prophet , Sam Seder will just tell me to Google It like he did during his debate with Kirk.
1
@texkillerson6681 , I know.
1
@jtmv8915 , I know. She still died due to poor quality and them refusing to give her an MRI earlier.
1
@texkillerson6681 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566 http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf "The private facilities that have sprung up in Canada to meet the demands of those who want more health care than the public system provides fundamentally undermine the “single payer” nature of the system. "
1
@jtmv8915 , how? You have a girl who was not offered advanced testing. In the US we offer advance testing. It is one of the reason why we spend so much. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita. In the US she would have been offered an MRI sooner and would have received one and they would have cured her. Instead they stopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e893Ky7iM6Y&t=376s Go to the 4 minute mark. He explains how there is a gatekeeper in a socialized system. They cap the care they receive.
1
Prophet I might call Sam. Sam isn't that intelligent
1
@jtmv8915 lower quality. Being covered when quality is low is not a success
1
Prophet why should i send my sources? Shouldn't he know already
1
@ScyphKordan , people die in every nation due to lack of access to healthcare. Amenable mortality is an issue in every nation. I agree the prices are high in the US, but there are reasons for that both good and bad. A good reason is because we lead the way in R&D. In R&D many drugs don't see the market, the money to create them has to come from somewhere. When a drug does not see the market the company developing it don't make a dime off of it. A couple of bad reasons why prices are so high is because one, we don't have a free market healthcare system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system which drives up prices. Also, if someone goes to the ER, receives care and can't pay they don't have to pay. Thus the hospital has to make up the difference and they do so by jacking up prices. As for healthcare rankings, they are completely arbitrary. Anyone can do a legit analysis on the stats and create any ranking they want. To take something as complex as healthcare and reduce it down to a simple ranking is foolish. My suggestion is that you ignore healthcare rankings. When you break it down the US is on par with other nations. We do many things well but we do have many shortcomings, so do other nations. We should improve on the system we have, not completely change it.
1
Prophet , but if Sam is so smart he should know a lot as is.
1
@jasonruggles4622 , it was a temporary tax that was later ruled unconstitutional.
1
@underside483 , I am not smearing other nations, I am saying they have shortcomings as well. In other nations people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. In the UK people are going blind because they refuse to give eye surgery. Kyle feels people wait for things like cosmetic surgery but the reality "elective" surgery can also be neurosurgery and heart surgery. And defining a need is vague. If I require knee surgery I do need that as my job is dependent on me being active on my feet. But to an outsider it isn't as it isn't life threatening. I can look at this case in this video here and say this is not needed so this person will have to wait in pain causing more physical and psychological harm. I suggest you look at actual experts and not Kyle on the issue of healthcare.
1
@underside483 , I typically point to the book "In Excellent Health" by Scott Atlas. I also point to this source http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Kate-Baicker.pdf From there it becomes tricky. You say I should not make claims about other nations I do not live in, why not? Do you live in the US? Also, I know you have not lived in other nations for a significant amount of time. So by your standard you can't make claims either. As for other cases, in the UK people are being denied eye surgery and are going blind https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/thousands-in-britain-left-to-go-blind-due-to-eye-surgery-rationing-report People are denied heart surgery in Canada and are dying https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560551/ There are issues in every nation. There are many benefits to a single payer system, but it has flaws. The problem with the far left, like Kyle, is that they feel we can have the quality that is generate in our current system but the financial security of a single payer system. That is not the case. Something has to give. In the case of this girl she most likely will have to wait while being in pain as it isn't life threatening. That is the reality.
1
@texkillerson6681 , define need? If I require knee surgery I need it now by my subjective viewpoint as my job requires me to be on my feet. Not doing so will cost me financially. And being in pain can cost me psychologically.
1
Prophet , it is more of that Sam won't read it. I have seen how he argues. He diverts all the time and dismisses arguments. In a debate against Kirk he told people to Google it. If he was smart he would know some sources to look at. He doesn't.
1
@underside483 , in the UK they don't apply it because resources are limited, something has to give. Germany, though, does have a strong system with a combination of a private and public system. I support that in the US with a free market system and local communities, either through charities or local government, filling in the gaps
1
@HrPedrosak , so people going blind in the UK is not a horror story?
1
@underside483 , I disagree with being centralized. A centralized system lowers competition and innovation. It may work in smaller nations like Germany, but for the US of over 320+ million people I feel it can't. A centralized system, to me, creates these problems. 1. Lack of competition 2. Lack of micromanaging 3. Lack of improvement. On the last part where is the incentive and comparison to improve? To me with states and local governments managing it if one state does some creative thing to improve healthcare other states can follow if they so desire. But at a centralize lever there is no comparison. Germany, from what I can tell, has a private sector to compare to. But supporters of M4A want to do away with that. I compare it to education. Compare NV to MA. NV has low education results. Many blame the system but in NV you can earn a nice living work for the Casinos, working in the mines or working construction. Where is the incentive to get educated when you can make $80,000 a year parking cars? That is why there are only two four year universities in NV and why the society there does not value education as high. Now compare to MA which is home of MIT, Boston College, Harvard, etc. They have more four year colleges per capita than NV, and some of the most prestigious. They value education there as a society and thus their education outcomes are higher. In comparing those two states it is not an issue of system but an issue of culture. That is why I support some government being involved in healthcare, but it should be at the state and local level. Across the nation the idea of how much taxes should be paid, what level should government provide, how should they do it, etc. differs. A centralized system cannot account for that. One thing that irritates me is that people try to compare the US to Norway where we have 30 states larger than Norway. It is hard to compare.
1
@MichaelRoeterdink , in Australia cases like Neurosurgery is considered "elective". https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/509f8a18-73c9-416c-92a5-f5073201df46/15778.pdf.aspx?inline=true
1
@MichaelRoeterdink , it isn't just insurance. In the free market insurance will be insurance and cover only unplanned, expensive cases. Everything else will be paid for out of pocket.
1
Tom H , in every nation people die due to lack of access.
1
@ScyphKordan , if you regulate prices you end up with inefficiencies in the market. If you set the prices too low that there is not incentive to produce more nor are there resources. As for negotiation, what leverage does Medicare have? In the private sector and free market people can go to another provider. If government pays companies can jack up prices. If government refuses to pay people don't get healthcare. The US is the leader in R&D. In a free market little companies will excel. It is the regulations that hinder small companies from growing. Even with a few "bi guys" they will still be competing which lowers prices. Free market systems do work. Look at LASIK, free from insurance and minimum regulations and the price has been dropping for years.
1
@MichaelRoeterdink , people die "unnecessarily" in all nations.
1
@magnummax78 , Canada, Australia, UK just to name a few.
1
@magnummax78 , I agree, but people are using it as a standard in the US but not for other nations.
1
@magnummax78 , speaking to many Canadians does not represent the norm. Healthcare rankings are completely arbitrary.
1
@magnummax78 , I don't look at it as something to be feared, I see it as reality. I am all for increasing supply, but the reality is that no matter what system you have resources are limited and rationing will take place. You increase supply by incentivizing healthcare with a free market.
1
@magnummax78 , it does prove about waiting list, people do die waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Bottom line is that in every nation people do die due to shortcomings in the healthcare system. As for learning they need the care I assume you are talking about preventative care and check ups. A study showed that even with access to healthcare people's physical health did not change. While they were made more aware of their conditions their physical health did not improve making them a high risk for bad health. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 People are typically in bad health due to poor life style choices. That is a major problem in the US that M4A will not cure based on that study. I understand the goal of M4A, the reality is that those goals are not attainable. You have to change, and by that I mean lower your standard of healthcare. In the UK people are going blind due to the NHS refusing to offer eye surgery. Here is the bottom line. A system like the US does well for the very sick at the expense of the very poor. A universal system does well for the very poor at the expense of the very sick. Universal healthcare systems are great for very basic needs and it does offer healthcare to the very poor, but the very sick suffer. In the US the poor do go bankrupt and some do die due to having no insurance. But our survival rates are much higher for the very sick. Something has to give. To go deeper the very sick in other nations are old at times, such as the individuals going blind are because the UK denying cataract where most who have that are old. Those dying due to "elective" heart surgery in Canada are typically old. Maybe that is the route we need to take. Also, in the US we have higher survival rates because we offer advanced testing, such as we offer more CT scans. A major problem I have with M4A supporters is that they are not willing to have difficult discussions like that. What do we do with the elderly and very sick? At what point do we stop offering advanced testing? M4A supporters want the luxury of the quality of our current system but the security of Medicare paying for it. You can't have that. The far left refuses to have difficult discussions on this issue. The reason why M4A is not gaining traction in the US is because the far left is not presenting these challenges and when, months later, they are presented people question the political left at that point. Be honest, that is my suggestion.
1
@ScyphKordan , M4A is literally a monopoly. What will stop hospitals from jacking up prices?
1
Kyle really needs to stop talking about healthcare. He is doing a major disservice to society by spreading his ignorance.
1
@RemixedVoice , I don't find it funny in how ignorant Kyle is on this issue.
1
@stabbymcpokey5901 , no, I feel he presents ignorant arguments like most on the far left. Kyle's videos have these going for him 1. Not many viewers so my comments won't get buried like it would in TYT 2. Still a large enough audience 3. Predictable as he says the same handful of things over and over again Plus, is fun, to a degree, to watch far leftists continue to lose, make excuses and out immature.
1
@zidneya you don't understand the law
1
@omagaonion613 , ok, here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/
1
@zidneya , you have a right to be protected against illegal search and seizure, but nowhere does it say privacy is a right. Police don't have to serve you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia And you don't have a right to education. Law is not your strong point.
1
@omagaonion613 i cited a court case bud
1
@DarksiderDarmoset , education is not a right. Local societies decided to fund it. Most funding comes from the states and local government. If you want to have healthcare funded by government that is a different issue. But consider that it is not a right. Compare education nationwide. In rural areas they don't offer many courses like calculus, physics, foreign languages, etc. In urban areas they offer AP courses. So if that the standard you want?
1
@zidneya , I cite a court case and you run away......
1
@omagaonion613 , citing a court case knows that I actually read court rulings.
1
@JohnMoran , and people like healthcare in the US, what's your point?
1
@advenco344 , there is a difference between laws and rights. You hacking into my computer is breaking a law, same in you breaking into my house. Just like speeding is breaking a law. Here, I will make it clear. Rights are things in this country that the government cannot take away without due process. Let us consider the right to free speech. Government cannot take it away. But if I were to post a video on Youtube and Youtube were to take it down they would not have broken any law. Your example is you breaking laws. There is a difference between laws and rights. So no, privacy is not a right.
1
@DarksiderDarmoset , that doesn't make it a right as they don't have to. Again, learn what rights are.
1
@CahzinarX , exactly. I can respect the idea that government should pay for healthcare, and I can be on board with it at the local level But calling it a right is purely an emotional argument by the far left. You don't have a right to other people's services. You don't have a right to other people's goods. So no, healthcare is not a right. Those claiming it is have weak arguments on this issue and thus can only use emotions. They say it is a right to dismiss any counter arguments as opposed to taking it one.
1
@SY-qg6qn , exactly. If you say healthcare is a right than you have a strong lawsuit on your side if government refuses certain level of testing. In the US we offer many testing that people will say is not necessary. But if you make healthcare a right you can demand those testing which will jack up the price for government. If government refuses you can sue them saying they denies you your right to healthcare.
1
@zidneya , you cited a source from the UK and I cited a US SC court case on the right to a police service. If the right to police services is a right in the UK than fine, but it isn't in the US. Cite actual US law and court cases, not ones from other nations. As for right to privacy it is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, so no, you don't have a right to privacy. Some have argued you do, others say you don't. In many cases there were push for it but with an argument still looming you don't have a clear right to privacy http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html You don't have a right to education. Education is managed by the states. In every state it is in their Constitution to provide education, but states can change that if they want and the federal government cannot do anything as there is no federal Constitution requiring education. The reason why you did not receive a bill is because your state and local government decided to offer the public an education. But that does not make it a right. The right you had was equal treatment under the law via the 14th amendment, but not a right to education. Learn the difference.
1
It is.
1