>Murrikans voted for GOP & Trump
Trump has nothing to do with this you mong. No way the god emporer would support this
You know what?
That's one of the most benign things put forward for the internet is years.
Between CISPA, TIPA, banning encryption, if this is all GOP is going to do, I welcome it with open arms.
>GOP literally out to turn US OF A into a fifth world shithouse
No idea why mudslame hate them, they are brothers in mind.
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP TO MAKE AMERICA GREATER!
>Netflix, for example, recommends a download speed of 5Mbps to receive high-definition streaming video
That's 1/5th of a 25Mps connection for netflix alone, assuming you're only running one device.
If you have multiple devices and each is doing something like one running netflix, one playing video games, one downloading stuff(like games on steam), and one watching videos on youtube then 25Mbps could be cutting it close.
It means the standards should go up according with available technology
ISP wants to keep it lower so they can brag about how more e people have broadband when really isps are fucking crony and refuse to give people better speeds. Comcast is the worst offender of this claiming their customers don't want higher speeds
What they are saying actually isnt that bad. The only stupid statement out of the entire thing was
>"In addition, according to the FCC's own data, the majority of Americans who can purchase 25Mbps service choose not to."
which is obviously stricly price related and due to the monopolies ISPs have in this country.
I just looked it up and in 2015 the FCC bumped broadband minimum from 4/1Mbps down/up to 25/3Mbps. Explains why my 15/1Mbps connection randomly bumped up a few months ago, my new speed matches the new broadband minimum
Why isn't the internet treated like a utility yet? I don't wanna keep getting jewed by twc, their service keeps dropping in and out and the service is completely unusable between 5 and 8pm
600 billion or so.
With a population of 300 million, that alone would be enough to give each and every person 2k.
Not actually as much as I thought it'd be.
No idea if that's enough.
Free college for everyone alone would be about 750 billion per year.
Avg 22 mil enrolled in college * 36k average semester tution = 750 bil total. Divide that by approx 180 mil taxpayers and you get around 4200 dollars per taxpayer per year. People who only make 20k per year (people who can't afford college anyway) wouldn't be able to afford that on top of all his other tax proposals. People would begin to die. Not to mention a college degree would become as worthless as a high school diploma even if you COULD pay for it (which you can't, it's too fucking expensive to be sustained for any long period of time) since anyone could get one, thus defeating the purpose.
Anyone who played attention in economics knows that these things can't thrive in the public sector when you have a population as large as the US.
>inb4 citing socialist Nordic/Euro countries
These are capable of doing this because of their small population, thus making it much more inexpensive to fund their education, but statistics show that even these countries' economies are beggining to fail, and they are dying due to low birthrate.
Simply observe facts, cold, hard facts and you will realize nothing this mong proposes is fiscally possible.
>but statistics show that even these countries' economies are beggining to fail
Aside from the slump in Norway due to the laughably low cost of oil, citation needed. Even if we look EXCLUSIVELY at Norway, those socialist buggers have enough money stashed away to last until the end of the world.
Not everyone needs expensive medical care at the same time? You understand that it wouldn't be like allocating $2k to everyone, but rather a communal pool of money right? As long as the total withdrawals are lower than the supply of money, it should be fine. The US already wastes more money that countries with universal healthcare anyway.
Because they were smart with their oil money thats why.
With oil prices so low, now would be a good time to tie the gas tax to inflation and fix the US's crumbling infrastructure.
Instead what happens, SUV/Truck sales boom ..yeah like this shit never goes in cycles.. eventually they will tank and GM/Chrysler will be crying for money because their cash cow large vehicles aren't selling anymore.
>Source: NOTE The Norwegian central government is in a net asset position, i.e. the government’s total financial assets exceed the total debt. They borrow cheap to then re invest.
...did you actually look at the website you were posting?
>These are capable of doing this because of their small population, thus making it much more inexpensive to fund their education
A larger population also means a larger tax base, so I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to prove.
Not him, and not arguing whether or not it is or isnt. But just out of curiosity, how would making it to where everyone had "free" college change the fact that the prices are artificially inflated or not?
>Not to mention a college degree would become as worthless as a high school diploma
>since anyone could get one, thus defeating the purpose.
Do you even know what a college degree is for?
If you think it's just for getting a job/cash, you don't belong in college. What a waste of brain.
Is that not obvious? If the government took complete control over universities, then there would be no need to charge absurd amounts of money for education.
You're delusional if you believe current tuition prices truly represent the actual costs of education. It's no secret that it is dramatically more expensive now than it was a mere 10 years ago.
Wow, you're well and truly clueless, aren't you?
Oil was the source of the money, yes. The money was then invested into other assets. Those assets are not oil.
Also, throwing all this aside, the important figure is debt as a percentage of GDP. I challenge you to find a single country with a lower figure than Norway.
>People who only make 20k per year (people who can't afford college anyway) wouldn't be able to afford that on top of all his other tax proposals.
You retarded? He wouldn't take that from people making $20k a year.
>Not to mention a college degree would become as worthless as a high school diploma even if you COULD pay for it (which you can't, it's too fucking expensive to be sustained for any long period of time) since anyone could get one, thus defeating the purpose.
You retarded? Not everyone can pass college. A great many people would still fail to get in. And the good universities would become even MORE exclusive. If everyone can afford to go to college, the good schools can afford to be MORE selective since they would have more qualified applicants.
No one is suggesting everyone should go to college. Many people would still fail to get in. Getting into a good school would still be an achievement. But no one would be denied for their financial situation.
>thus making it much more inexpensive to fund their education
It costs exactly the same per capita.
No, we get better healthcare than them. Everything from cancer to simple eye surgeries have higher survival and less complication rates.
And that's despite the fact the average american has a far unhealthier lifestyle than any other country which is use as an example.
>Is that not obvious? If the government took complete control over universities, then there would be no need to charge absurd amounts of money for education.
Why would I want the govt to take complete control over universities? They already tried to push some common core aboslute bullshit, and the govt isnt very good at running large programs either.
Most people already attend public universities that are alright tightly controlled by governments. It's not a dramatic notion.
I agree it's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction. Math education shouldn't be based around mindless arithmetic.
>Everything from cancer to simple eye surgeries have higher survival and less complication rates.
Provided they get treated. Treatment rates are far lower than any other civilised country on the planet.
It's a bit like those studies showing there are low rates of type 1 diabetes in African nations. Funny that, you'd almost thing the diabetics were dying of something before they were ever diagnosed.
Sure it's better quality healthcare if you can afford it. But it's still fucked that we spend more money per capita on it, and it's not even universal. And that your fiances will be ruined if you get cancer. I don't know if universal healthcare is the ideal solution, but something should be done. I'd even try full on free market healthcare too.
25mbit is ridiculous.
Not even Yuroshit countries average that much.
Also people would rather pay something like $30/m for 20mbit than pay $70/m for gigabit. That's just a fact.
That's bullshit and you know it. Just look at loans to see the fact a bunch of free money only causes more people to get in that shouldn't.
Also, feel free to fund a party for a million people just as easily as you can fund a party for ten. I am sure there will be no difference despite the fact you will spend 25 dollars per person on each.
Shitty symbology and standarize mental process works better, I suppose.
What a shitty assumption to make when you can see it's their diet, as they have similar rates to other places with similar diets.But nah, it's the fact Africa is a shithole were nothing ever gets developed.
Why? You pay for better service and you don't end up with patients drinking water from pots because the NHS can afford any more glasses. Or to use Panama, my country, as an example you don't get thousands of people poisoned with cooling fluid and then have nothing but a "we are sorry" as a result.
Idiots who think Universal healthcare is some sort of panacea when they haven't actually had to live with it in both mundane and emergency annoy me to no end.
The NHS gets by with £116.4 billion a year to provide a similar standard of care to what most Americans get.
That works out to about $2,613 per person.
So yes, $2,000 a year IS enough to pay for healthcare with a socialized system.
Even leaving aside ethics, the US system is just plain bad. It's shockingly inefficient. Replacing it with a socialized system like there is in other countries would decrease costs and improve outcomes. The fact that socialized medicine helps poor people is just the icing on the cake.
>Broadband speed in Ireland has actually DROPPED by 11% since the year before
Impressive. Just when I thought that country couldn't get any shittier.
I think you're missing the point here, this is simply depriving slower connections a marketing title. You'll still be able to pay for an absolutely terrible line, no one will deny you that, it's just now the guy supplying it can't call it "broadband"
>What a shitty assumption to make when you can see it's their diet, as they have similar rates to other places with similar diets.
You need to go read up on type one diabetes before you make yourself look like an idiot.
I'm pretty sure most of the problems with your healthcare system are due to other factors (not enough doctors, government corruption, etc.).
The problem with the US system is that it is disgustingly inefficient and outrageously expensive. A well-done socialized system would actual decrease costs. Of course, the catch is that you would actually need legislation that is well written and not full of dumb bullshit, but in theory it could work.
These stats are so stupid because they lump wired, wifi and mobile speeds together (I'm assuming).
Most people in Belgium are on the 200Mbps wired connection, like me.
My friend in Missouri gets 2Mbps wired.
Since everyone has 3 smartphones nowadays, the low results of mobile connections are just distorting the figures and hiding the fact that wired connections are the worst in the USA.
That's what most people want it for though, dipshit. Getting their foot in the door for a skilled career. There's nothing wrong with going to college just to learn, but that's not the only reason people go. Learn to deal with the reality.
>That's bullshit and you know it. Just look at loans to see the fact a bunch of free money only causes more people to get in that shouldn't.
Does that make a degree from a good school less impressive? No, since those schools are still selective.
>Also, feel free to fund a party for a million people just as easily as you can fund a party for ten.
If I charge admission, it's no harder. Taxes are proportional to population. Expenses for free college are proportional to population. A big country should have no more difficulty than a small one.
>You pay for better service
Demonstrably false. The US system has worse outcomes than the NHS.
>similar standard of care
>they survival is roughly half
Please go to England and die there.
Then why do I get better, cheap service in the panamanian private sector? Or why is it my time in England was spend watching shitty care practices due to lack of funds? Socialize medicine is a retarded idea which only works if no one gets sicks. The instant someone does, you better hope you can recover on your own, or you will die.
>Twins studies show lack of direct genetic relationship
>the distribution seems to follow diets
>diet has nothign to do with it
I will grant you it's not definite science, but much like gluten sensibility (which is being acquired by people above the age of 30 at alarming rates) claiming it has no basis on diet when the thing that has changed more consistently is said diet is a bit of a stretch.
>Does that make a degree from a good school less impressive? No, since those schools are still selective.
Dunno, as the increasing unemployed and subemployed people with said degrees.
>If I charge admission, it's no harder. Taxes are proportional to population. Expenses for free college are proportional to population. A big country should have no more difficulty than a small one.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you think there is no difference in the administration, management, and allocation of both you have no idea how to organize large groups of people.
>The US system has worse outcomes than the NHS.
In what way? Every single measure of survivability for just about every disease is better in the USA.
>tfw cant argue with the libtards because busy at work
>tfw libtards can argue all day long since none of them have jobs
hold me bros
Don't worry, mate, I am stuck in a wheelchair because a worker accidentally bolted my leg. Total recovery in 6 months, the doctors say. I probably will need to leave to a parent-teacher meeting later, however. Who knew having a kid would be this much of a hassle?
>they survival is roughly half
The fuck are you on about?
>If you think there is no difference in the administration, management, and allocation of both you have no idea how to organize large groups of people.
Then say that. You were talking about the cost on an ABSOLUTE scale, which is stupid. Say that it costs more per capita because of increased overhead, not that it's absolutely more expensive.
Let me use a line from your party:
It's not my duty to educate you.
But I will anyway:
And yes, the absolute cost is different because the cost per capita increases with the number of people you get involved. No matter how you dice it, working with 100 people will be more expensive than working for 10 people unless you start scamping with the 100 people simply because it becomes more difficult to use the same resources you could with 10 people. That's basic business manage and resource allocation, mate.
>>Twins studies show lack of direct genetic relationship
Link to this. Now. This is one of the most ridiculous lies I've seen on this board in ages.
You may just want to skim read the Wikipedia article on type one diabetes before you post anything more. Type one is an autoimmune disease.
>>the distribution seems to follow diets
>>claiming it has no basis on diet
I don't even need to address this. You're genuinely thick. You're so thick you make a nuclear bunker look like a sheet of paper.
>Then why do I get better, cheap service in the panamanian private sector? Or why is it my time in England was spend watching shitty care practices due to lack of funds? Socialize medicine is a retarded idea which only works if no one gets sicks. The instant someone does, you better hope you can recover on your own, or you will die.
England is like one of the shittiest "first world" countries in pretty much every metric though.
So is Gluten sensibility, mate.
Also, have fun:
You can move the goalpost all day, mate. I can only speak for Central and South American care, and England, because those are the places I have lived in. And based upon those dozen of countries, and England, and reports from the rest of Europe, apparently the secret to having lower healthcare costs is to not provide care and have a population with traditionally healthier lifestyles.
>These stats are so stupid because they lump wired, wifi and mobile speeds together (I'm assuming).
>Most people in Belgium are on the 200Mbps wired connection, like me.
nice anecdotal evidence. not everyone lives in the city like you.
>hurr i get 200mbit, that must mean everyone else in muh cuntry does as well
>In most cases of type 1 diabetes, people need to inherit risk factors from both parents. We think these factors must be more common in whites because whites have the highest rate of type 1 diabetes.
Oh hey look, type one IS genetic, you just made yourself look even thicker.
>It is a genetically heterogeneous autoimmune disease
What did that say? Did it use the word genetic?
There is absolutely no proven link between type one diabetes and diet. Now, I seriously suggest you stop making an idiot of yourself.
>Genes alone are not enough. One proof of this is identical twins. Identical twins have identical genes. Yet when one twin has type 1 diabetes, the other gets the disease at most only half the time.
>Because most people who are at risk do not get diabetes, researchers want to find out what the environmental triggers are.
>Type 2 diabetes has a stronger link to family history and lineage than type 1, although it too depends on environmental factors.
You are cute, anon. You thought no one would look into the links?
Fuck you, man, the BBC is awesome!
>Let me use a line from your party:
I'm not a member of any party. And I DO think it is my duty to educate you. Your current state of ignorance is dangerous. It worries me that someone as stupid as you can vote.
>they survival is roughly half
That is not what the thing you linked to actually says. Here is the text:
>NHS patients are 45% MORE LIKELY TO DIE than patients in the US
1. Survival rate != death rate. Doubling the death rate is not the same as halving survival rate. Let's say people in American hospitals have a 95% chance of surviving. According to your misunderstanding, that means people in UK hospitals have a 47.5% chance of surviving. But the article actually talks about the DEATH RATE. That means you should double 5%, not half 95%. That gives a much more reasonable 90% figure.
2. That is not a factor of two. That is a factor of 1.5. The chance of death in the US is roughly 2/3 what it is in the UK, not roughly 1/2.
So, according to your logic, a 95% survival rate in the US corresponds to a 47.5% survival rate in the UK. Based on the REAL figures, a 95% survival rate in the US corresponds to a 92.5% survival rate in the UK.
You fucking retard. Please go repeat the fourth grade. How do you not understand how percentages work?
>Not reading the rest of the article
>not doing more research when faced with these
>not understanding what survival rate means
It's fine, anon. I am sure Bernie will make it all magically make sense and the NHS not be terrible.
Not him but I have to say, even the Irish HSE is better than the NHS and the HSE is heavily based off the NHS, just as all of Ireland is heavily based off the UK while they all deny it. BBC is great though.
Ok, you seriously need to get some reading comprehension. To quote the bit you quoted;
>>Genes alone are not enough.
That does not contradict this one very, very important sentence >>52567548
>>It is a genetically heterogeneous autoimmune disease
Type one is genetic. There is more to the picture than just genetics, there are suspected triggers but it is still genetic.
>Not reading the rest of the article
I have read it. It says that the chance of dying is 45% higher. You're the retard who thinks being 45% more likely to die means you're half as likely to survive.
so I didn't read context and just jumped in off of the first page, so apologies for that, but are you tards seriously going to argue that the average level of healthcare in the US is going to be better than the NHS?
the US may have world class doctors in their specific field, but as does any first world country, however the NHS is one of the most cost effective healthcare providers *in the world*, all the while capable of providing a decent level of care on a countrywide scale free to anyone at point of service, and if public health services are too pleb tier for you yanks then you also have access to private health care in the UK which is on par with any private healthcare service in the first world
it's a joke that the only counter argument to the NHS is >muh world class doctors
>Fuck you, man, the BBC is awesome!
nonono you misunderstood, I'm saying they're the metrics for which England should be judged!
I'd challenge anyone to find a country that doesn't lap the BBC up as an import that isn't some shit hole third world country, since the BBC is the king of public broadcasters and rivals some private broadcasters and all
Show me where it says the survival rate is half. I'll wait.
You're being so retarded right now that I almost suspect a false flag. You should have learned percentages in the third grade. Are you TRYING to be stupid?
The level of care in the US CAN be higher than the NHS provides. If you have the money, you can get far better care with no waiting lists.
But the NHS provides a good standard of care at an amazingly low price.
Oh, anon, you begin claiming that somehow Blacks not having it isn't cause by outside agents but simply because death rates, and now that you are faced with the fact Type 1 is mostly the result of outside agents which dictate it's appearance.
Type 2, on the other hand, is the one that's mostly hereditary and will likely occur even in healthy individuals. You made a mistake and didn't bother to learn about what disease you were talking about. Left on it's own, type 1 is unlikely to develop.
Frame it as you wish, mate. Attempt to misuse terminology as you must. The fact is there is better care in the USA and no amount of NHS glorification will fix that.
/pol/ is probably at work, if the post rates are anything to go by.
>Looking at the market for broadband applications, we are aware of few applications that require download speeds of 25Mbps
LITERALLY EVERYTHING can use higher speeds. Literally every site will load faster. Literally every file will download faster. Netflix and Youtube (neither of which is known for its video quality) require 25 Mbps for some videos.
Are these politicians just pretending to be retarded because of bribery, or are they really that clueless?
>Blacks not having it
Actually, didn't mention anything about blacks, the comment was about the lacking healthcare in African countries. Trying to set up a strawman isn't helping you.
>Type 1 is mostly the result of outside agents which dictate it's appearance
Type one is triggered by environmental factors, it isn't caused by them. Jesus fuck, read what you've linked. I have, and certainly more than once. I know most of these articles off by heart already.
>Type 2, on the other hand, is the one that's mostly hereditary and will likely occur even in healthy individuals
This goes against every scrap of evidence on the planet, do you have even a single documented case of type two occurring in a healthy adult?
>Attempt to misuse terminology as you must.
I'M the one misusing terminology when you act like a 45% increase in death rate is the same as a 50% reduction in survival rate?
Let's say Disease A has a 5% chance of killing you in a US hospital. This means you have a 95% chance of surviving.
According to the article you linked, the chance of dying in the UK would be about 45% higher. Let's round that to 50%. That means you have a 5% * 150% = 7.5% chance of dying, which means you have a 92.5% of surviving.
According to you, the chance of SURVIVAL is cut in half instead. This means you have a 95% * 50% = 47.5% chance of surviving in the UK and a 52.5% of dying.
The actual figure is 7.5% and your misunderstanding gives a figure of 52.5%. You are off by (52.5% / 7.5%) = 700%! That is a lot of error! And your error could be even bigger in some cases.
I suggest you watch these videos. They should clear things up.
I think he might be counting room and board. Those are necessary.
As far as I can tell, Sanders' plan would not provide free room and board to all students, just to those who need it. Tuition would be covered for everyone.
Not him and not defending the 36k per semester number but I suppose you could get up to that figure if you were studying in a place with absurdly high rent with a ridiculous tuition fee. That's a pretty narrow definition though.
This has got to be bait. Increasing death rate by ~50% is NOT the same as cutting survival rate in half. How can you people use a computer if you don't understand third-grade math?
>Do you not understand ratios anon?
You may just be using that as an insult, but he LITERALLY doesn't understand ratios. Just look at the other bullshit he's writing.