Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Vox" channel.

The problem isn't the government, it is their actions, which are in violation to the rules they need to follow in order to be a member of the EU. If they don't wish to follow these rules, they should leave. But the moment any party will suggest really leaving, it probably would lose all support because Poland gained (and still gaines) too much from the EU. So they just ignore EU rules instead and are supported by Hungary in this. Personally I feel the EU should just start somekind of procedure to force out both Hungary and Poland, let them live by the rules they want that way. The eastern countries came in too soon.
15
AnHeC What the ....? Are you stupid? a) If you have fully nationalized healthcare gov. controls all the prices, payrolls and means of care. They decide how much they pay doctors. The downside is that they are likely to have a shortage of... everything. doctors still get a very decent wage that is (significantly) higher than othet people in public healthcare countries. If there is a shortage of doctors or anything else the government will try to remedy that by upping their wages, taxes cuts, try getting more students to become doctors (and these student don't to be afraid of high student debt). That there is a shortage is ridiculous. The people who don't get proper care because of that would be up in arms. b) with private healthcare and people paying directly there is incentive to be competitive and lower prices. If you want too much nobody is going to pay. What? Prices are set by the government in cooperation with the healthcare system to get the lowest affordable prices. Private healthcare is in the end a profit making bussiness, the government insurance just needs to be in balance. Furthermore because in a single payer system the government has so much people insured, they stand much stronger in price negotiations, this where private insurance is usually much smaller. And if private insurance firms become large enough to be in the same negotiating position they already have to much power and could just jack up their premiums. The statistics in this video showed exactly the opposite of your claim. c) when 3rd party is paying + you are ripping off the government, you can charge whatever you want. People are not going to protest, since it's not their money (at least not directly). You end up in the shittiest situation of all. The more the gov is willing to pay the more the harpies will charge. And yet this is exactly the opposite of every evidence. Public healthcare systems are generally cheaper because the government will also try to get as low prices as possible. No one likes a government who need to exact more taxes.
7
@aisstunna2999 Roads destroy natural land, houses destroy natural land, power lines partially destroy natural lands. Essentially every human infrastructure destroys natural land. What's your point?
6
it's funny that you believe we will need manual labour to unload goods. Eventually this too will be automatised needing only a few persons for a lot of trucks to be emptied/filled. Also the comparison is wrong in my eyes. They will never let a plane fly without a pilot out of safety reasons, and pilots still need to execute the landing and take off. This autopilot for planes is more similar to cruise control in cars than self driving vehicles. but yes jobs change in form and functions. But this is usually indeed a net loss of jobs and these jobs will require overal more education. The jobs that you can get with low education will be the ones that will be taken over by tech which needs more educated workers. Yet many people/educations aren't yet ready for this due to the fast progress that is being made.
5
@dazziliciouscamouflage If the point is to first make sure there is good insulation, then you're right.
5
@jimmacgregor4459 Because it didn't really have an impact on gas use. After phasing out the first halve of nuclear power gas use actually went down for a few years (for electricity production) due to renewables who both picked up the slack of the nuclear phase out and lower gas usafe, but then slightly back up as coal powered plants were being phased out. Currently gas use in electricity it marginally higher than when the first part of nuclear was phased out. What not phasing out nuclear would have done is a larger phase out of coal-powered electricity production.
4
Why do people say "the government controls it, and so they won't give it up". But if a privatised system is better a government would jump at the chance to change to it. People would pay less taxes and less insurance => government is seen as cutting spending and lowering taxes without a decrease in quality => government is popular. Really if a system is better and cheaper, no government will keep a single payer/public healthcare system, just to keep power in government hands. What does this government cares about that, if they might lose power in the next election?
4
@ferguswatt2884 The costs of renewables is much lower than fossil fuel plants. And while batteries aren't there yet, their price dropped by 5 in the past 10 years. If they drop by half in the next 10, they will be financially on par with nuclear and almost with fossil fuels.
4
@marty644 And? What part could not be achieved due to the size difference?
4
Except France's nuclear wouldn't have mattered considering only a fraction of German gas use goes to electricity production. Give Germany's industry to France and see its gas use skyrocket. Even now France's primary energy consumption exists for 16% out of gas vs 26% for Germany, this while Germany has a much bigger industry demanding gas.
4
indeed, in three states Trump won by 1% or less. If these three states went to Hillary, she'd have taken the electoral college. Then again, some of Hillary's wins also were really close too. I wonder why they aren't talking about a blend between the electoral and popular vote, by for example just eliminating the winner takes all principle (although for the consevatives the winner takes all principle seems to be more advantaguous, so doubtfull they'll work on changing it, however the abolishment might open up new advantages to the conservatives by getting more electoral votes from large states like new york and california). As long as this principle exist you'll almost never get a third party that will have any influence. At the same time with the abolisment of this principle a candidate will have to visit as many states as possible, while now ensured states don't really need to be visited and swing states actually seem to have the power to decide the outcome. Without the winner takes all principle, all states will become more relevant.
3
@sergiocastro5304 There are a lot of industrial process that need gas. Currently no non-gas process exists, are much more pollutant (like coal, but this also is often imported from Russia) or just starting (larger) testprojects. So it really is out of necessity, not it being cheap.
3
Matthew Rizzo It does matter how many voted for Trump or against hillary. Within 2 years there isn't a hillary to vote against, therefor people that now voted for Trump might then vote against him to try and paralyze his power for the 2 years after that. They now choose in their opinion the lesser of two evils, but this doesn't make it less evil. easy put: Vote for Trump to keep hillary out =/= vote for trump to get/keep him in power.
2
Not to bad compared to the mining already going on in general. And once enough batteries are in circulation recycling them will bring the necessary materials for new batteries (except for the increasing demand ofcourse).
2
Yeah, and half of the top 20 is made up of allies, 7 of them in the top 11. US allies together spend 1/3rd of the worlds military investment, US another 1/3rd and all other nations (neutral or hostile/rival) combined another 1/3rd. So purely on money US callies can take on the rest of the world without the US and at least force a stalemate (and if all these nations, allies and non-allies would spend the same % of GDP, allies would come out on top without the US, easily). It ofcourse is in the best interest of many nations to keep good relations with the US, but don't think they all truly need to US.
2
@Andreas4696 Which ones?
1
@uclamnguyen1459 You literally said nothing as to why the US would absolutely be necessary. Yes, Russia is the second most powerfull military in the world. But the EU + UK together would take that place together. Russia would maybe initially have momentum, but once that stops and it turns into a war of attrition the EU is very much in a better position, it has the economy, manpower, industry, ... to outlast Russia. China is 3rd, but Japan and South Korea would probably be right beneath China in power (together). Considering that they would probably also have an alliance with India who now is right beneath China, it would at best be an equal fight for China, at worst it would suffer. India would cut of Chinese trade in the indian ocean and Japan and South Korea in the Pacific. Both China and Russia would need (for now) a fast win, a war of attrition would be detrimental. China isn't capable of quickly taking out Japan and SK, which would be the minimum, maybe in the future this might be different. Russia only has a chance of quickly defeating the EU if they can't come together fast enough. Neither Russia nor China have anything to gain with open warfare. Rather they would do what they do now: cyberwarfare, claiming sea territory, skirmishes/invasion of neighbouring countries that are not allied to a strong faction, ... Taiwan is probably the most reliant on the US, since SK and Japan might not be willing to defend it if it means open conflict. Now, that being said, ofcourse an alliance of sorts with the US is preferable compared to going it "alone", but it is not truly necessary. It is the same for the US, do they need their allies? No, is it best to keep those allies? absolutely.
1
There wasn't such agreement. It was agreed with Obama that Nato members would spend 2% of GDP on military (of which 40% on material or such I believe, which is also a way to maybe have them buy US material) by 2025. So there still are several years to get up to that point.
1
@TheBighatter Solar panels can quite easily be recycled, their "short" life spans thus don't matter that much.
1
In 1914 Canada was still part of the British empire, so they were automatically pulled in. It wasn't like they made the decision themselves. In WW2 it was similar.
1
This had to do with brexit and how the UK has behaved during it. The UK essentially thought the US would always have their back, no matter what they did. They though they could just turn to US if relations with the EU soured. And especially things like the Irish border and good friday agreement and the internal market bill, which essentially breaks parts of the EU-UK separation agreement, are a possible problem. How can you trust and support a country that so blatantly might just unilaterally break international agreements? But even Trump is going cold on the UK, why? Because the UK is less important than he EU. If Trump must choose, he'll probably choose the latter.
1
You mean with bush right? It was under his term that the US invaded middle eastern countries. And how does Trump not support Israel?
1
Funding has decreased after the fall of the USSR, not due to WW2. Honestly best thing would be an EU army. But guess what, neither NATO nor the US like that idea.
1
Trump did increase drone strikes even more and didn't exactly went out of conflicts either.
1
Oh please, no EU country will be invaded in the next 2 decades, at best Ukraine would be. But they aren't really an official US ally anyway. China is unlikely to invade South Korea or Japan any time soon. It would damage their economy and a win is far from certain. Japan and SK together have funding around 40% of China's and even if they aren't official US allies, the US can't let it happen without losing its standing. And invading Japan an SK will be to these nations advantage. And if China does something so dramatically, it is unlikely others in the region would just sit by and do nothing. India can't allow China to become too strong, neither can other countries who would possibly be next.
1
+Jarl S What makes you think I am for a capitalist healthcare? I am for a singlepayer public healthcare system, practically the opposite.
1