Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes

  • Published on May 2, 2014
  • In which Hank debates Hank on one of the most important debates in the United States today, whether to keep the internet open or to allow cable companies to open fast lanes (and slow lanes) for different parts of the internet to flow through.
    Please make a public comment here!
    Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
    This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
    You can also email the FCC directly here: dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
    If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms, check out:
    Save The Internet (from FreePress) www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
    Public Knowledge: www.publicknowledge.org/
    And contact your congress people: www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Comments • 3 465

  • Jimmy Escajeda
    Jimmy Escajeda 10 days ago

    This is clearly a biased argument. First of all it's not content (or a particular type of information) that is being throttled. It's BANDWIDTH, or the mass amount of raw data, regardless of who it is that's using it. If you soak up all the bandwidth you should pay more just like if you use a LOT of electricity KWH, you pay a higher rate per KWH. This is free market economics not government controlled economics. This is the way electricity is already being charged for, and NOT the first time in all history something like this has happened. Net neutrality is not really "net neutrality" it's government control and regulation of the internet which is bad.

  • Fictional Bliss
    Fictional Bliss Month ago

    Forgive me if this is a dumb thought. Ok so, we created the internet. We built it and it became more and more popular and accessible. If it changes into something we don’t like as big business wants to then why not build Internet 2.0. A separate system not connected to the internet but exactly the same as the internet and just start over. If enough people accessed this second internet then it would follow the same path the internet we use today took but at an accelerated rate. If we the people left and rebuilt our own system then it would destroy the original. Just a hypothetical, what do y’all think, is it feasible?

  • The Garden of Eatin

    Internet service providers are now acting as the phone companies and post office used to: as common carriers. As such, they should not get to decide who gets what bandwidth. The post office is required to carry an envelope from any address in the United States to any other address in the United States for the price of a stamp. A letter is a letter, a kilobyte is a kilobyte. *drops mic*

  • Boldt
    Boldt Month ago

    Four years later, still an issue.

  • K D
    K D 2 months ago

    I'll just say that idrk if im for or against net neutrality..... however you kind of contradict yourself @ 2:31.

    They kind of do though because they are THEIR pipes.

  • Them gamers
    Them gamers 2 months ago

    This seems a little bit bias

  • Spud Lord
    Spud Lord 3 months ago

    Hank is Right

  • Lon Johnson
    Lon Johnson 3 months ago

    This is an extremely naked example of a straw-man argument. The only way it could have been worse is if Hank were actually naked.

  • Blob Dragon
    Blob Dragon 3 months ago

    Does he have a twin?

  • ol' Man
    ol' Man 3 months ago

    This was slightly bias...

  • Electro_blob
    Electro_blob 3 months ago

    You should have had both sides actually present their argument. The lawyer guy was purposely presenting strawmen of the net neutrality argument. More realistically, you should have had the lawyer argue that they own the service they provide to you, and you can neither force them to provide that service, nor prevent them from providing a service, because it is theirs, and that net neutrality is a violation of their right to their property, (the routers.) Instead he argued some incoherent nonsense about wanting give people a fast lane and the industry being mature.

  • Noedig
    Noedig 3 months ago +1

    The internet is just like how important water is to us; it's a necessity. We can't treat the internet like it's anyone's property, because it's provided around the world. It is open to anyone that can access it. We don't need net neutrality, a regulation for companies to treat all sources fairly, because they SHOULD be treating all sources fairly, otherwise they SHOULD get sued if they did tamper with their customer's access. God, the amount of legal technicalities that ISPs make up for fees, costs, and profits should already be a felony.
    Why isn't there an amendment preventing people attempting loop-holes? This needs the people's voice so that they can stop legal tyranny.

  • Jacob McKnight
    Jacob McKnight 3 months ago

    "Great economies are built off competition - Not profit." Profit is mother of competition. To discard all economic arguments as irrelevant and then display such an under-developed understanding of the economics is an asinine rebuttal to arguments such as the efficiency of vertical integration, not to mention the absurdity of modern monopoly theory.
    Most importantly, the real issue here is property rights. I.e. who owns the last mile infrastructure, the nodes, the content, etc. Fundamentally this is all solvable with addressing and enforcing property rights.

  • marigold is not my name

    welp it happend

  • •boy who likes books•

    oh shit it's relevant again

  • Alek Daniels
    Alek Daniels 3 months ago

    Oh my God, I was so immersed in the convo that I really did react as if there are two real opposing persons. Weird.

  • Sooner Admirer
    Sooner Admirer 3 months ago

    The real conversation should be about how we increase internet quality/speed.

  • UkiUki373
    UkiUki373 4 months ago

    You can tell it's fake because they let each other talk without interrupting.

  • Passing Time
    Passing Time 4 months ago

    I agree with net neutrality and all but this was pretty biased.

  • Barret Fredricksom
    Barret Fredricksom 4 months ago

    I’m gonna go pro net neutrality

  • Cl Vsr
    Cl Vsr 4 months ago

    I think the debate was biased...

  • Mary Hekimian
    Mary Hekimian 5 months ago

    Thank you so much for helping me understand net neutrality.

  • Carl Mohr
    Carl Mohr 5 months ago

    Hank should do a rehash of this video with any new arguments on the topic.

  • northtexan95
    northtexan95 5 months ago

    This video isn't a debate. It's a presentation of only one side of the discussion.

  • Magnus Juul
    Magnus Juul 6 months ago

    Totally agree with Hank! or Hank? hm. No it's definitely _Hank_ and not Hank if you know what I mean.

  • notanewbie dude
    notanewbie dude 6 months ago

    Why is the pro-net neutrality Hank so highstrung? He's flinging his arms everywhere!

  • JJoe
    JJoe 6 months ago

    Would have been useful to debate an actual person with an opposing viewpoint...

  • R. Downgrade
    R. Downgrade 6 months ago

    Check out Steven Crowder if you want a REAL debate on bloody Net Neutrality.
    And just this isn't just a plug (though it's more a deferment because a video is easy to say to look at than tell people why they're wrong and not believe it no matter the source), just look at what companies are super PRO net neutrality, they would literally be the biggest ones in Facebook, TVclip, and Google. So, if you're going to play the "corporations are evil" bit, then maybe question why the biggest corporations are for it AND if you believe them to be beyond the proclivity for ANY form of corruption.

  • Tuxedo Productions
    Tuxedo Productions 6 months ago +1

    The people who pave the highways don't set the speed limits.

    • Tuxedo Productions
      Tuxedo Productions 6 months ago

      To be clear: "The people" means the contractors who are driving the tractors and litterally paving the highways. Like how the internet companies build the pipes. Telephone lines have more safeguards over this sort of crap than the internet.

  • Randy Ward
    Randy Ward 6 months ago

    Wow, such weak arguments. The rebuttals should have had proper informative answers but didn't. Weak sauce.

  • Joe Conroy
    Joe Conroy 6 months ago

    To be fair maybe I’m wrong about this but wouldn’t slowing down torrent websites strengthen copyright laws. Surely there should be some middle ground where providers can slow down illegal content but they are subject to legislation preventing them from unfairly altering the market.

  • Bruno TaTa
    Bruno TaTa 6 months ago

    not even close to accurate

  • bLoCkEd aNd RePoRtEd
    bLoCkEd aNd RePoRtEd 7 months ago

    I feel like this was literally him making a strawman

  • Lenn
    Lenn 7 months ago

    What is the point of debating yourself? You're totally biased and picked your side before you started. It would make more sense to actually talk to someone with an opposite opinion.
    What a total waste of time.

  • Squiggle Snek
    Squiggle Snek 7 months ago

    That's the biggest misrepresentation of the whole debate.

  • Bl U
    Bl U 8 months ago

    If ISPs did that, they would go out of business.

  • Thomas Snyder
    Thomas Snyder 8 months ago

    Obviously one sided. I expected both sides equally

  • Argus Erhardt
    Argus Erhardt 8 months ago

    But they billed Netflix... not us. The less than perfect big service companies will make way for smaller ones to rise and we'll see service improve and prices drop, just like mobile service. Verizon was forced to make a decent plan because of smaller carriers.

  • David Goodman
    David Goodman 8 months ago

    Literally taking two sides at the table was an amazing approach to argue two sides of a complicated issue. I sure wish Hank (or John) would do that with other complicated issues! Does anyone know if they do?

  • Seth Martin
    Seth Martin 8 months ago

    So I like this format for future debates, but you seem to have clearly left out the ISP's best points in order to make a clear winner. Why didn't you talk about the potential benefits of traffic prioritization and Quality of Service controls? It's an indisputable fact that neutral networks are not the optimum way to move traffic. There are prioritization schemes that will increase the speeds of time sensitive traffic (games, streams, etc) at the expense of non-time sensitive traffic (e-mail, most web pages, logging traffic, etc). That's why most companies and many home users enable QoS on their internal networks.
    Other Hank would argue that although such good systems exist, ISPs are unlikely to implement them in the face of ones that make more money.
    ISP Hank would then say that optimum routing saves him money on infrastructure purchases.
    Etc etc etc. Why was this major point for the ISPs omitted in favor of pandering like "well we have more lawyers and lobbyists so screw you"?

  • Rhys Baker
    Rhys Baker 8 months ago

    Week done for at least trying to defend both sides.

  • John Hales
    John Hales 8 months ago

    Hmmm the intelectual version of Double impact , do this WWE style...Spice it up lol....oh also if your motive to serve is determined and is able to be expressed because of money, you are only a lessor and not so accomplished form of them.....just saying :) Why do you supose so many people like Trump , I hear it often "how can such a man be an idiot, hes got so much money". Arguably folks hate the goverment because they are at a level most feel they cant aspire to reach, though behaving like them sometimes helps.... monetarily, and often even more. Remember bardering began our fall in the case of freedom prior we simply gave and received what was needed and hording would have been considered a sickness of paranoia that seems to have turned in to a pandemic while the most unfortunate suffers are in charge of the lessor sufferers.

  • MaxPower
    MaxPower 8 months ago

    I guess ISP Hank was right in the end. As long as ISP Hank gives Ajit Pai enough money he can do what he wants.

  • Iain Stewart Music
    Iain Stewart Music 8 months ago

    I think we should pay for the internet and I don't think its my right to have it at all! Like many services, you have to pay for them to use it.. this is just bloody cyber communism !

    • Iain Stewart Music
      Iain Stewart Music 8 months ago

      Just a Knight why don't you just admit you think net neutrality is good just because it has "neutrality" in the name! Get government out of the business of the internet. The minute they start regulating it, it will destroy all the small start up ISPs.

    • Iain Stewart Music
      Iain Stewart Music 8 months ago

      Just a Knight paying more than you may need to. Free market should dictate how much you pay for each service. I just don't buy this whole anti capitalist rhetoric!

    • Just a Knight
      Just a Knight 8 months ago +2

      boxeriain Wtf are you talking about? We still have net neutrality now and we still are paying for internet. Just admit you have no idea what you are saying.

  • King Vlastimir
    King Vlastimir 8 months ago

    Ajit Pai and 960 Comcast and Verizon employees disliked this video.

  • Vernon Schmidt
    Vernon Schmidt 8 months ago

    If we can't play on their level because they have purchased the government, that means it is now moral to play this out on the streets. Paid should be dead.

  • Lucas Oliveira
    Lucas Oliveira 8 months ago

    The person or institution who owns the pipes should decide what they want do with them, and that should be true to every single private property. It is not up to you or anyone to enforce or rule other people's possessions. If there is demand to some internet services, there will be people who will be financially incentivised to compete for this service supply.

    • Lucas Oliveira
      Lucas Oliveira 8 months ago

      The government intervention is the reason why there aren't many companies and significant innovation on this whole market. In a free market system, where demand exists, there is supply. I know that's I am about to say may sound too basic, but bear with me for a sec. People have to make a living, so they have to choose something lucrative to do. Do you need food? People will work hard to sell it to you. Need energy? That may require a big investment for companies that want to get into this sector, but if the less people are engaged on solving this problem, more lucrative and interesting it may gets, so a lot of investors will jump into that. Don't you know what else you need? People come up with great ideas like phones and computers so you can spend some money on. Why do you think that something with such high demand like internet service would not exist in a country without net neutrality?
      There is no service that a company can provide that others don't with enough resources. We live in a world with A LOT of resources, so that's probably not the problem. There is huge demand for internet access, so that is not a problem at all too. The service these few companies in the market offer is also not so good as it could be for the price and current technology, so it clearly shows to the market that there is room for other players to provide the same service and get a portion of the demand. So why is the case we have so few internet related companies in the US and other countries? Why all I mentioned not enough to incentivise people to get into that business? What are we missing? The case is that... the internet sector is a mess! Most people and governments think is just common sense to interfere in the sector, immorally and stupidly controlling the companies and assuming that its private property is public! Who would want to invest in such a market? It's just too risky, even high demand and need for better services make people interested enough to play that game.
      This artificial system made by the government incentivise companies of the sector to be corrupt. To stay in the game in be profitable this companies try to work with the government while they should be competing with other companies in order to provide the best internet service.
      Furthermore, why is the problem that companies can choose how it provides their service? In what speed or how to run it? Who are you or anyone to decide what and they should do something?
      "and should be regulated by a neutral body". Man, really? Neutral body? Have you already seen such thing somewhere? Just let me know if you did.

    • Av J
      Av J 8 months ago

      Lucas Oliveira
      Sure, but there are already certain companies that hold a large portion of the market share, therefore making perfect competition as described by you difficult.
      The internet has become too vastly significant to allow a profit motivated oligopoly to decide how to run it, and at what speeds. Like water and electricity, it's now almost a basic necessity in more developed countries and should be regulated by a neutral body.

  • loganship
    loganship 8 months ago

    this reminds me of battlefront 2

  • Rae Gilbert
    Rae Gilbert 8 months ago

    You should redo this video

  • Neal DoubleAA
    Neal DoubleAA 8 months ago

    Classic Straw-manning, none of this is true. Your service provider isn't going screw you because if does you will just get another server provider for your internet. Meanwhile, no big companies like netflix shouldn't have use little people paying for their INTERNET usage.

  • ッRad Shawn
    ッRad Shawn 9 months ago

    you talk to fast.

  • Lirgo Arthings
    Lirgo Arthings 9 months ago +1

    I kinda agree with Hank... but then again Hank makes some good points too... I dunno!

  • Brian Boru
    Brian Boru 9 months ago

    Net Neutrality definition: The application of Title II regulation on the Internet.

  • mahadragon
    mahadragon 9 months ago

    Netflix had a big brouhaha with service providers years ago. They have been paying for faster streaming service for at least a couple years now. They were actually one of the last big streamers to not pay for faster service. Lots of big companies like Apple don’t necessarily have to pay to ensure the fastest download speeds, but do anyways to ensure their customers receive the best services. It seems to me a moot point to discuss net neutrality when things have basically been decided already.

  • Nathan Braddy
    Nathan Braddy 9 months ago +1

    Someone please explain to me why the people we did not vote on to be in office get to make such a big decision. Yes I understand that the money going to the FCC come from congress which we do get a say on who's in or out; but what I do not understand is why Ajit Pied gets such a big say in this decision. He wasn't even elected. He was appointed! So why the hell is he legally capable to go against 90% of people and shut down net neutrality? Someone please explain.
    Also side note I'm so sick of partisan politics. People need to be doing what's right for the people not what makes them look good to their party.

  • yizzie82
    yizzie82 9 months ago

    holy s***t ....it looks like stuff is about get real in usa :( it would be like great firewall of china but with little moneydoors to get thru... capitalism is kinda kickass but it seems like greed has no limits on some peoples :( :( hope you guys can win this one!!

  • Tim MD
    Tim MD 9 months ago

    I didn't immediately realise this was a three years old video. It sure is a constant fight.

  • Name Here
    Name Here 9 months ago +1

    Aaaaah... Capitalism^_^

  • Jammy Sizlo
    Jammy Sizlo 9 months ago

    I had to restart this video 10 times because it kept getting stuck buffering.

  • GoodByeKittyGoodBye
    GoodByeKittyGoodBye 9 months ago

    How many times do we have to go through this???

  • NiLowther
    NiLowther 9 months ago

    I thought this was today's video all the way to checking the date.

  • Trisimiton s
    Trisimiton s 9 months ago

    I wish you did a beter debate.

  • Daniel Johnsen
    Daniel Johnsen 9 months ago

    If this bill is stopped by either congress or in court, there should be a law made to make it almost inpossible to repeal net neutraility in the future. And Ajit Pie should never again be put in a posission of leadership, he is not fit for it ever.

  • Robert R. Hasspacher
    Robert R. Hasspacher 9 months ago

    it's like a disney movie, the plot turn is overt and the conclusion is one-sided and black and white. A talented, but corny and un-nuanced conclusion. you're welcome for the comment.

  • Peyton Beyers Films
    Peyton Beyers Films 9 months ago

    The companies should be allowed to control what's going through their "pipes" and monetize it because, well, those are their "pipes." They spend the money on the infrastructure, and we pay them to use it. Net neutrality is just removing the ISP's rights as a private business. They paid for the infrastructure they have and they should be allowed complete control without government intervention. Repealing net neutrality is not destroying a "free and open internet." The internet and the content on it will be the same regardless of what the outcome is.

  • dallas copp
    dallas copp 9 months ago

    That's like saying to cable companies they have to provide all the channels equally, no has to pay to have a TV show, and that people shouldn't pay for different TV channels and stuff like that.

  • ToonEzon
    ToonEzon 9 months ago

    Hoping my comment isn't too little too late, as this video only now popped up on my TVclip homepage, and hopefully there still is a way to quash the fcc's agenda to kill the internet in some way, but to put it plane lynado: I fight for the user!

  • Hubjeep
    Hubjeep 9 months ago

    I clicked on the express comment on the FCC website. What do I type into the "proceedings"?

  • A Llama
    A Llama 9 months ago

    This video should be called "Hank argues with a strawman for three minutes."

  • Andres Hartmann
    Andres Hartmann 9 months ago

    Substratum will solve the net neutrality problem

  • Mayo Goalie25
    Mayo Goalie25 9 months ago

    Netflix, Hulu and any other company is just going to make their own internet service.

  • roguedogx
    roguedogx 9 months ago

    someone remind me to get back to working on the AmpCom Project. I was supposed to be a low cost High-speed internet solution in regions where high-speed internet is just not economical to install for location reasons. But I'm thinking a high-speed internet that uses a "non-traditional infrastructure" might be useful now that Net Neutrality has hit the waist bin.

  • Milvio Deleon
    Milvio Deleon 9 months ago

    Nice echo chamber.

  • Eric Paige
    Eric Paige 9 months ago

    I agree with your message but you need to think through both sides of argument more, I mean if I buy 250gb of internet and they're offering 50mb per second on that then I should get that, if they want to slow down internet they can offer a slower package.

  • Imani Malaika
    Imani Malaika 9 months ago

    Cable companies are paying for network access that fewer people watch so they are losing revenue to Netflix. People are using more bandwidth for Internet access that is cheaper than cable. Wireless still needs a wired connection! Think of Netflix as HBO for free and you will see why companies are upset. Throttling is like censorship.
    Public comments will not carry the same weight as industry lobbyists that represent big money donors, thanks to the Citizen's United Supreme Court precedence about money in politics. Soon, pay-per-view will have a whole new meaning. I think Netflix increased their price in anticipation of this repeal.

  • I am superior to all.
    I am superior to all. 9 months ago

    It's basically people who have blind faith in private companies vs people who have blind faith in the government.

  • Theodore Smith
    Theodore Smith 9 months ago

    Strawman. The anti net neutrality argument is that they should be able to charge whatever they want for their services. Its their personal property. Even if literally everyone else wanted net neutrality it wouldnt matter because they arent hurting customers. Its a mutually beneficial transaction or people would cancel the service and the isp would be forced to change.

  • Dorrance Durden
    Dorrance Durden 9 months ago

    this is stupid... next they will "debate" climate change if havent already LOLOL

  • にゃあエイリアンMeowAlien

    It is 3 years old but it is more relatable than ever

  • Aldo Ramirez
    Aldo Ramirez 9 months ago

    What they forgot to mention is that the so-called "Net Neutrality" was put into effect BEFORE Title II and perhaps even before the internet existed!
    Seems like a bold statement?
    All these articles and videos and NONE of them had mentioned the much older Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. They ensure that anticompetitive scenarios like price discrimination (i.e. "Internet Fast Lanes") violates the law because it is an Antitrust Violation. It is also important to remember that the term, Net Neutrality, doesn't have a legal definition. Removing Title II will also relieve many government regulations that will encourage investors that were lost in 2015 (over $150 billion lost).
    I, too have been skeptical of the repeal of Title II before I stopped relying on articles and explanatory videos upon this subject and started researching.

  • Protein Philosopher
    Protein Philosopher 9 months ago

    Got this in my recommendations like woah. Net neutrality was just voted on and repealed by the FCC but crazy how all these old videos are showing up for me after the fact.

  • Kitsunary
    Kitsunary 9 months ago

    3 years later, this video is enough to prove Ajit Pai's argument false. Look at the published date.

  • Pikapetey Animations
    Pikapetey Animations 9 months ago

    Hank you're wrong about your argument the infrastructure for higher speed lanes and internet is already in place it hasn't been switched on yet

  • Hardcore Bunny
    Hardcore Bunny 9 months ago

    Do you realize that the internet providers are not a utility right? They have a right to run their service the way they please, removing the internet from the FCC control can actually help set up smaller internet providers for local areas which would be able to supply unlimited data at much faster speed.

  • Peters palace
    Peters palace 9 months ago

    Can I just send this to the people who will make net neutrality safe again?

  • Peters palace
    Peters palace 9 months ago

    I feel weird now that net neutrality is in the toilet

  • GoodJacK Falstaff
    GoodJacK Falstaff 9 months ago

    Wow. Look at this...the internet is still here. Simply amazing.

  • Benard Soberg
    Benard Soberg 9 months ago

    Can non-Americans comment to the FCC?

  • T W
    T W 9 months ago

    Net neutrality pretty much lost here.....

  • Not Steven The Beaver
    Not Steven The Beaver 9 months ago

    There are not enough dialogue style arguments like this that give realistic and somewhat strong arguments from both sides. This is satisfactory

  • 0. .0
    0. .0 9 months ago

    can you redo this video as normal people as Pro VS Anti reform??

  • Adina McCray
    Adina McCray 9 months ago

    When you watched this whole video not realizing that it is from 3 years ago and not a week ago.......

  • darkdudironaji
    darkdudironaji 9 months ago

    That debate started out good...and then you kind of turned the cable company into a strawman. If you were debating somebody that was actually anti-NN, you would have had a much harder time seeming like the winner.

  • Jesse Silva
    Jesse Silva 9 months ago

    Nice strawman

  • pittchaser
    pittchaser 9 months ago

    Me cave man. But me remember way back when me little in time of the twenty one five. Me remember internet work and me find cavelady. Me think internet work even after 18 moon year past twenty. Me think you idiots just doomsday. Me hungry

  • Phatnaru0002
    Phatnaru0002 9 months ago +1

    Would be more accurate if the response to making the internet unlevel was to say that it's always been unlevel - it's entire history, and YOU are the one trying to change it - also the response to "you don't have the right" should have been - YOU don't have the right to demand how we run our business, because WE are the ones PROVIDING you with service - finally, instead of "with all that money we can afford lobbyists and lawyers" - the honest line would be "with all that money, we can provide service to more areas that lack it, and we can upgrade our currently covered areas to achieve greater speeds".

  • Jon Merinar
    Jon Merinar 9 months ago

    Man I was excited it started out like hey he's going to hit both sides of this argument in a non-biased way and then you went full of s*** train and and clearly showed your bias by demonizing the guy on the other side I learned little to nothing from this video

  • Philip Berthiaume
    Philip Berthiaume 9 months ago +2

    Dear America, let me understand this: A high majority of American's want net neutrality, yet it's being compromised by regulators; a majority want more gun control, yet it's not being provided by regulators; an overwhelming majority want socialized healthcare and yet the direction is to dismantle what is already in place; cost for essential medicines like an EpiPen shot up in price to over $600 per pen overnight when in Canada, it costs $70 USD. If you are an American, you need to realize that you do not live in a social democracy like 99% of the first world, you live in a capitalist society that places more value on wealth accumulation than on almost anything else.

    • Death Wishes
      Death Wishes 4 months ago

      Which is why European countries are falling apart as we speak after 50 years of single payer and low healthcare costs.
      Your ignorance baffles me, and it seems like there is no point in trying to discuss solutions with a stubborn conservative.

    • Matrix Man
      Matrix Man 4 months ago

      Death Wishes Before the govt got involoved in the healthcare market, costs were too low. The medical establishment didnt like that, so the govt fixes that. Single payer will inevitably collapse

    • Death Wishes
      Death Wishes 4 months ago

      Canada, the UK, Italy, and more all easily make it to the top 20 biggest militaries in the world, so I really do not know what you are talking about. My point is that millions in America are uninsured, and millions more are under-insured. Even so, it costs 470 dollars to buy the cancer drug in the UK, while it costs 3k in America. Hell, it would be cheaper for someone to buy it in the UK, then send it through an airplane into America. Single Payer works, simple. There are no successful free-market alternatives, because they do not give the insurance single payer provide. And private companies will still exist in single payer countries. So everyone will have access to decent healthcare, but if you are insanely rich and want amazing treatment, you can still go to all the other private company alternatives.
      I grew up privileged, having access to affordable healthcare. I myself thought America had great healthcare, until I passed into East Side of my city. What I saw was comparable to that of a third world countries. None of these people have access to ANY healthcare. I also traveled to the rural outskirts and saw similar results. This experience moved me, and I urge you to look for a poor rural town or the slums of a city. Ask those residents about how they feel about American healthcare.
      We can do better than this.
      We have to do better than this.
      In the end, it boils down to a single choice. The Military, or America?
      And to be honest, our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya that cost trillions could have funded decades of single payer health care. We have a choice. Lt us wage a war, not against Saddam Hussein, not on drugs, but against poverty and inaccessibility to healthcare.

    • Matrix Man
      Matrix Man 4 months ago

      Death Wishes There taxes are SUBSTANCIALLY higher. They have 25% sales tax on top of income tax. If they still have debt after that, its a recipe for failure. Not to mention were footing the bill for their military

    • Death Wishes
      Death Wishes 4 months ago

      Matrix Man
      Once again, you are propagating claims with no factual evidence whatsoever.
      First of all, the debt per capita of the United States is roughly equal to the debt per capita of the European union, so your claim about the debt is absurd.
      Secondly, the tax rates of America are slightly less than the rest of Europe. America's tax burden is 25%. Europe's is 30-35%. Europe does not have "insane taxes" as many Republicans think, and I am getting this data from the OECD, so it isn't any sort of "fake news". Once again, your arguments make no sense and fall apart from a quick Google search.
      The real reason why we have such high taxes in America is while other countries focus on providing services to their citizens, we spend more tax dollars on the military than the next 15 countries combined. If we as America drastically cut down military spending to more than the next 3 or 4 countries combined (which is still a LOT), then single payer becomes easily feasible.

  • MrTomservo85
    MrTomservo85 9 months ago

    Wow,you destroyed that strawman, hank.

  • SlipnSlide
    SlipnSlide 9 months ago

    Wow, I wonder which side he's on. Keep in mind we didn't have net neutrality laws before 2015 and somehow the internet still thrived and grew to what it is today. Also, it's funny that he's calling out ISPs for apparently being "greedy," but let's be clear: he's concerned about it because it means that Google may be forced to pay ISPs more because TVclip and Netflix consist of half of all internet traffic (Source: www.cnet.com/news/netflix-youtube-gobble-up-half-of-internet-traffic/).. This creates a situation where the ISP can say, "Yo Google, pay us more or we'll throttle you since you consume a disproportionate amount of resources and thus should have to pay more than other smaller sites." Until Google inevitably pays up, they'll throttle TVclip specifically which hurts Hank's bottom line since he depends on viewers for revenue.
    So yes, in all likelihood, ISPs will throttle very large sites that consume a disproportionate amount of resources until the pay more. This is to be expected. Those sites should expect to pay more. This is why super large sites like Facebook, Google and Amazon are for net neutrality. Their presence online is ubiquitous, thus they stand to lose the most by having to pay for what they consume. And that's why they're for net neutrality. They don't give a damn about you or "internet freedom" (seriously, if you think Google and Facebook care about internet freedom you pay, like, no attention to current events). Companies don't care about you they care about the bottom line. Smarten up.