Comments by "Hugh Jorgan" (@HughJorgan1) on "TIME" channel.

  1. 45
  2. 31
  3. 25
  4. 22
  5. 21
  6. 21
  7. 14
  8. 11
  9. 11
  10. 10
  11. 10
  12. 10
  13. 9
  14. 8
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96.  @chrisreed4065  .Not sure where you get the $36 trillion number. In 2018 we spent about 1.1 $trillion on healthcare programs (medicare, medicaid and veterans) and various subsidies. I agree with you 100% the current system needs to be fixed. The unconstitutional ACA clearly isn't working for everyone. The countries with universal "free" healthcare have much higher overall tax rates than America. In some cases, such as Denmark, the overall tax burden is almost double ours. You won't be able to find a single country with universal healthcare that doesn't pay significantly more in overall taxes. And/or.. they have massive healthcare subsidies using federal dollars. In many cases paid to private companies. A fundamental question people need to ask themselves is whether they want their tax dollars to go to free healthcare for certain groups who don't pay taxes. An example would be new immigrants and their "chain immigration" family members (often seniors) who haven't spent a dime in US taxes in their life.. but will have access to free care. Some may be ok with such a program. Many won't be. There's no doubt we have major issues with our current private/public model, including massive overcharges for certain procedures on the public side (let those using private services pay whatever they want) and ridiculous drug and administrative costs. We need far more regulation of these areas. As Trump famously said: "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". There's no easy solution. I think we need to keep it simple and focus on the low hanging fruit rather than a complete overhaul.
    1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. D W ..Those cave paintings were debunked by palaeontologists. While they’re dated to the time people were in the area, those thinking they represent dinosaurs are simply seeing what they want to see. It’s similar to the many examples of ancient human drawings being interpreted as aliens. But that’s only the start of a long list of inconvenient truths for those making the humans with dinosaurs claim: 1. The last dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago while the oldest hominid fossils are from about 7 million years ago. 2. The first peoples in the Americas (where these paintings were found) were homo sapians. Our oldest fossils go back around 250,000 years. 3. The oldest fossils of homo sapians found in the Americas are about 20,000 years old. Therefore, for Christians to try to claim humans existed with dinosaurs is a completely ludicrous fantasy. Of course, it’s an understandable ploy. It’s important for Christianity, and all religions, to try hard to maintain their delusional belief systems, particularly among children. They’re the future of the cult and brainwashing starts early. It’s child abuse to teach children ridiculous fictional stories such as Adam and Eve or the Ark are true. And an adult believing dinosaurs existed alongside humans is sad. They might as well also believe the sun revolves around the earth. By the way, there isn’t a shred of ad hominem in my original comment or my first reply to you. Conversely, your first comment was 100% ad hominem. It dealt entirely with the person, rather than addressing the issues under discussion. I encourage you to learn the meaning of phrases before applying them. And yes, I know I’ve used some ad hominem in this comment. Thanks for the chat. I’m glad to have educated you. I know facts won’t change your belief systems. For that, you have my sympathies.
    1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1