6,395 Forum Posts by "TheThing"
At 5/11/10 07:56 AM, Bahamut wrote: However, the way they said all the levels from LBP1 will be on LBP2 will make the original game obsolete which is a damn shame.
It's the same thing they did with Rock Band 2. It shouldn't matter; it seems as though it's the same as the original, only with 32465413213165 more things in it.
At 5/10/10 10:47 AM, BlueFlameSkulls wrote: LittleBigPlanet 2 trailer.
Shit looks awesome. I loved the first game, but this takes that to a whole new level. You literally build platforming games this time around, not just levels. You can even throw in some mini-games.
There's no way they'll be able to make a 3 - where the fuck are they going to go from here?
Was pretty good, although I would have liked to see a bit more descriptiveness and "big words" used in the second paragraph. It just felt a bit too bland, especially when compared the opening.
Otherwise, it was good. I mean, it's hard to get a sense of how well you can write fiction in such a brief passage, but it doesn't seem all that bad.
At 5/6/10 05:26 AM, BobbaQ wrote: Also, fellow Brits, don't forget to vote today.
Wanted to share this early, but I forgot. It's the American view of the first Prime Minister debate ever. It's 10 minutes, but fucking hilarious. Unless you don't like getting a huge American sack rubbed in your face.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ap ril-21-2010/united-kingdom-general-elect ion
There's no way gas prices will ever reach $5.00 a gallon.
A) Gas topped off at ~$140 a barrel in 2007-2008, and the average price didn't go much higher than $4.25. If prices do go over $5.00 a gallon, it will be from artificial increases by oil companies.
B) In this economic climate, and with this president, gas prices will be frozen if they start reaching those marks (can't wait to hear the new round of Barrack Obama - Jimmy Carter parallels Fox News will make). After the crazy profits oil companies saw in 2007-2008 at the expense of the average customer.
C) I'll become rich. I'll be shorting oil when it gets to the $90-$100 range, and make mad dough from it. But since none of my grand plans ever works out, you better believe that oil won't get that high.
At 5/4/10 03:29 PM, poxpower wrote: The technology is largely there around the world but it takes 5-10 years for your extra money spent on it to turn into savings and people no rikey that.
And that's why we're in an economic crisis - because people didn't realize that they would actually have to pay for the things they bought later. Likewise, that don't realize that to make money, you have to spend money.
We're like obese people,
Really? I think of it more as heroin addicts. Rather than weening themselves off of heroin and onto coffee or something less dangerous, they figure if they just use purer heroin, they won't run into the same health problems they are now.
Well, I think I have my new medium. I don't know if it's the fact that I can crank one out in a short time, or that it's just how my brain works, but I think I'm beginning to like writing and reading poetry. I'm more into prose, but I'm learning how to rhyme, as evident by a few of the couplets below, but I'm still bad at it, as evident by a few of the couplets below.
Anyway, this is a simple love poem. Nothing too complex or dark, unlike my other works (awesome way to work in a plug - go check out my profile to read some of my other stuff!). This isn't my best work by a long shot, but it's a nice little poem. Anyway, enjoy.
-------------
"Dream"
Life is but a dream,
And nothing is what it seems.
Which explains why everything is so surreal,
It is that way that You make me feel.
Before, my life was a horrible nightmare,
Before I found that You cared.
But now I smile
Because the Monsters are less hostile
I thank You for waking me
Into finally being able to see
That Love has no bounds
When You, my love, are around.
But now I can never go back to sleep,
For my heart You now keep.
I can never go back into the darkness
And live a life of complete starkness
Personally, I liked it. It was relatively simple, yet painted a vividly dark picture of the speaker's ideology. Personally I prefer a poem where I have to decipher the message from the metaphors, but the imagery was so well put together I didn't mind I only had a dig a little to find it.
I do agree with Monkey in that you should break up the lines. They just seem too long right now, unless it was a stylistic choice that I missed. But otherwise, it's an awesome poem
So, my PS3 has been working great as a dust collector the past few weeks.
Anyone else enjoying their PS3 this much?
At 4/25/10 01:06 PM, kman355 wrote: I dont have a car so i cant really drive anywhere out of town.
Anymore protips?
Do your parents have a car you could use after school or on the weekends? There are a lot of jobs that are kind of flexible about that. Or public transportation is always an option.
At 4/24/10 08:59 PM, kman355 wrote: I hate being poor. It seems i cant get anything i want. At all. My newest game is about 3 weeks old. And my 2nd newest is like three months old. Fuck my life.
My top 3 newest games?
God of War 3 (March 16; 1 month, 1 week, 1 day old)
Heavy Rain (February 23; 2 months, 2 days old)
Rock Band 2 (December 25; fucking long ago)
But that doesn't matter. I've got a back catalog of games I haven't completed, or games that I just love to keep playing. As long as it's fun, it shouldn't matter how old it is.
Although it does piss me off that I've got a bunch of games I want and no money to get them.
Anybody wanna help a poor white man out?
Get a job, hippie. I'm getting an awesome $600 check in 4 days. Granted, $400 is reserved for the loans I've taken out from my parents, and I'm probably going to need about $60-$70 for gas, but that's still about $120 of spare money. And 2 weeks after that, I'm going to get a similar check.
At 4/23/10 11:02 PM, TheThing wrote: Hey, long time no see. As a returning gift, I've got a ModNation Racers PSP Beta code and no PSP to use it on. So either you send me a PSP, or I'll send you the code.
PM me with what you're offering.
And by "offering" I mean if you want the Beta key, because I'm not going to use it.
Hey, long time no see. As a returning gift, I've got a ModNation Racers PSP Beta code and no PSP to use it on. So either you send me a PSP, or I'll send you the code.
PM me with what you're offering.
At 4/12/10 12:04 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Speaking of God of War 3, did anyone else find the Cerberus mini-boss just before Zeus harder than Zeus himself?
Yeah, that and the end of the Labyrinth. Even Zeus took a few tries to figure out his strategy.
At 4/11/10 02:33 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/11/10 01:29 AM, TheThing wrote: Like I said, there are plenty of countries that don't consume more cholesterol, sodium and saturated fat.You didn't say that.
I didn't say every country; I just said that there were plenty of countries that did consume as much as we did.
I don't make more than 40k a year and I pay full price for health insurance.
I didn't say everyone making 40k a year. But there are some people who can't afford insurance making that kind of money. Usually, those people have some kind of illness currently (after they already had insurance), then saw their premiums go up because of that. Or they can't afford their plan because it leaves too many out of pocket expenses up to the person.
I'll give you that. But as you said earlier, fat, high cholesterol, etc., isn't the only thing people go to the doctor to fix, or can be prevented by changing your diet (family history, etc.)Ok, I'll give that to you too. Genetic predisposition is a fact. One may get cancer/disease at an early age. It has a lot to do with lifestyle (which you state as an individual responsibility).
Yes, certain things can be prevented or mitigated with a change in lifestyle, and the only person who can change their lifestyle is that person. It's up to the individual to recognize what in their life needs to change in order for them to live healthier. Yes, a doctor can say "do this if you want be okay", but it's up to the person to follow that.
But a doctor's visit does help. Have you ever heard of free clinics or other forms of pro bono healthcare?
The problem with clinics/pro bono doctors is that they usually aren't too good, or are brand new have very little knowledge. Besides, it would be seen as a waste for the government to help those places out, since they service very few people compared to hospitals and local doctors.
They'll stick a sign outside their office, like the one I drove by today that said "Accepting Mass Health", except it will say "Accepting National Health". More low quality health service providers.
It's not a public option, which is something a lot of people don't realize. The government is not providing the healthcare. They are providing a way for most people to buy from Company X.
Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but maybe they'll start to think twice about eating McDonald's 4 times a day. A lot of those people just don't know, and a Doctor's visit can change that.If they eat McDonalds four times a day, they aren't poor. I feed 140 people for under 5 dollars each daily. Even the dollar menu couldn't beat that.
It's an example. Besides, how do fat people become fat? They have to have a decent amount of money, otherwise they wouldn't be able to buy all of that food. But whatever, a doctor's visit can help open people's eyes to the damage unhealthy choices can do.
I get smoking and gambling, but how is being fat or catching an STD from a hooker generate profit for the government?McDonalds pays taxes generated from those 4 meals a day. How about getting an STD from a tramp you met drinking at a bar? The govt made a profit off of the drink you bought that impared your judgement. Stupid example.
You could say the same for meth or cocaine. We're spending money to fight it, when we could just legalize it and tax it to make money. But those evil progressives what to impose consumer protections, and make sure that people can't enjoy the benefits of meth.
Which, you say, my taxes help pay for. And I don't want to help pay for those 32 million new plans.
Well, we could have had a public option. Imagine you have a $500 plan. But the government passes a law that says you have to get insurance from the government for free. But they increase taxes to pay for it. You're now paying $300 more in taxes. This means you're ahead by $200.
Obviously, this kind of scenario doesn't work with everyone, as a percentage increase would raise your taxes over what you spend on healthcare at some income level. But most people wouldn't understand that would be saving $200 in my hypothetical world. They would just see that their taxes went up by $300.
To be honest, I don't think the government is really doing any of that with the insurance companies.Don't be ignorant. UMASS Memorial, a private company. Look it up. Ultra-subsidized by the state. One of the largest employers in my region. They offer ONE insurance company to their employees. Is that not favoritism?
Almost all government programs have significantly lower administration costs than competing private companies. For example, the Post Office runs at about 10% administration cost, while FedEx runs at about 30%.According to your argument, FedEx should be out of business. But behold, they must offer a better service (or at least a more convincing brand).
Remember what happened when gas was $4.00+ a gallon? People drove less, and car companies made a fortune on fuel efficient cars. In the long run, gas companies will lose more per year then they gained at the time.Bad example. I remember specifically the summer of 08. And I remember the big economic crisis occuring those same months. You can't make this claim without acknowledging the BIG picture.
Gas was going up and up before then. It was starting in late 2007, and went on through the spring of 2008. It was before the economic collapse, which happened in the fall.
You'll probably defend it til your dead, whether you get elected to office or not.
Not always. There are things I disagree with the government about, but healthcare isn't one of them.
To elaborate on my prediction, Republicans will make the Senate 54-46 (+ or - 1) in favor of Democrats, and in the House, depending on how many seats are open, will go something like 235-200 in favor of Democrats.Wow, party predictions. How do you independent candidates will do? I hope better than you will predict.
Well, there are 2 independents in the Senate, but they are essentially Democrats. The only independents that have a shot are the ones from the Libertarian and Conservative parties. But they'll just split the votes with the Republicans, and lose the seat to the Democrats. Just look at New York's 23rd district back in the winter.
If you want a ideology prediction, the Senate will go 54-46 (+ or - 1) Liberal, and the House will go 235-200 Liberal. I just don't see Conservatives picking up a majority of the seats.
At 4/11/10 05:48 PM, ShadowWest wrote: Regarding the God of War 3 Challenges of Olympus:
They're either really tough, or I just suck at the game. I've only done one challenge :(
Yeah, you might suck. There are only 2 challenges that I consider hard - defeating everyone with your fists, and getting turned to stone 10 times. The rest are fairly easy, if you try a few times and formulate a strategy.
The fists took me forever and a lot of curse words. What I found effective is if you run to the right at the very beginning, take the dude right when he spawns, then use him as a ram on the rock dude right next to him. When the cyclops appears, always try to ram him, then throw the guy at him - he'll get knocked back from the ramming, and again when you throw the guy. Also, don't do any of the quick time events; they take too long to get the kill. Try to knock the big guys off of the platform.
For the Gorgons, when they start to shoot their freeze beam, block it, then fail the QTE. It'll freeze you instantly. Just be ready to break free. Also, don't jump - if you get hit with the beam in the air, you get turned to stone instantly, then break when you fall down. Also, don't be afraid to succeed in the blocking QTE, which will freeze all enemies in the area. It'll buy you some time to either take them out, or freeze yourself.
For the pots, only use the quick attack (square). Anything else takes too long to do and can miss. I suggest moving to the right, then working clockwise from there.
For population control, just run to a group, then use the L1 and Square attack constantly. Should be easy.
That's all I got right now; I haven't played the challenges in a while, so I can't remember what they are or how to beat them.
At 4/9/10 09:02 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/8/10 09:30 PM, TheThing wrote: There are plenty of other countries that smoke more, and drink more than Americans, but are still much healthier overall than us.I don't know where you get your facts about these undefined other nations, but lets say they consume more cholesterol, more sodium, and saturated fat, and we'll see if they 'healthier' overall than us.
Like I said, there are plenty of countries that don't consume more cholesterol, sodium and saturated fat. It's common knowledge that most Europeans are overall healthier than Americans, and they have fast, cheap food that is fattening, just like we do.
you talk about giving low-income people access to better healthcare..
Not really. There are people making $40,000 a year who can't afford insurance. Granted, that isn't a lot, but it sure isn't what many would consider "low-income".
yet they are the ones who have the least amount of choice when it comes to the quality of food they can purchase.
I'll give you that. But as you said earlier, fat, high cholesterol, etc., isn't the only thing people go to the doctor to fix, or can be prevented by changing your diet (family history, etc.)
Or is their choice still going to be the high preservative, high fat, in-the-can stuff?
Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but maybe they'll start to think twice about eating McDonald's 4 times a day. A lot of those people just don't know, and a Doctor's visit can change that.
Not to mention the government generates huges revenue off of our unhealthy habits and vices,
I get smoking and gambling, but how is being fat or catching an STD from a hooker generate profit for the government?
Even though rates have been raising for years, you don't think it has anything to do with speculation into the government's plan to introduce new taxes for the goods and services these insurance companies provide (which is now law)?
Those taxes are only on the most expensive plans. And like I said earlier, they are getting 32 million new customers.
Without so much government intervention, wouldn't you think the free market would take care of this? If there was a product that was too expensive for the demand, someone is going to offer one relatively the same at an affordable rate.
Doesn't work like that. In most states, 1 insurance company has most of the policies. Whether they're the cheapest or not doesn't matter; it's what doctors will accept that insurance. The bigger the company, the more likely a doctor will accept the insurance. So another company may be more affordable, but the doctors in your area may only plans from other companies with more expensive plans.
But government favors certain companies, contracts to certain companies, and subsidizes certain companies
To be honest, I don't think the government is really doing any of that with the insurance companies. Construction or military companies, yes, but not insurance.
Then, in reality, those people need to do some better shopping for health plans. They don't need the same coverage as a 50 year old handicapped obese man or a 90 year old tube fed woman.
Refer to my monopoly argument.
We'll see how successful the government is at administering this program at a low cost to us all. Obviously you can tell I am against my money being used for the government to waste, which it will be mostly wasted.
Almost all government programs have significantly lower administration costs than competing private companies. For example, the Post Office runs at about 10% administration cost, while FedEx runs at about 30%.
Hence high premiums and profits, I suppose. And don't worry, these companies will pass the costs onto the future clients. The savings won't come from NOWHERE, they come from US.
They would (in most cases) be idiotic to do that. For example, I almost laugh every time I see a "don't raise energy taxes because they'll pass the cost to us" commercial. Remember what happened when gas was $4.00+ a gallon? People drove less, and car companies made a fortune on fuel efficient cars. In the long run, gas companies will lose more per year then they gained at the time.
Euthanasia is illegal, and obviously you know little of the advances of psychiatric medicine.
As I said, it was only a joke. You'll never stop criticizing the government until you're dead, whether on other medication or not.
NOTE - There is nothing you or I could do about this bill anymore, the debate is over, and your side won. However, I'm still willing to argue about how bankrupt the US is and how we can't afford new entitlements, let alone the old ones.
I understand that, and I thought we were already debating about whether or not we can afford the bill. I mean, if people really don't want it, and the Republicans win Congress (which they won't), they just won't fund the bill.
To elaborate on my prediction, Republicans will make the Senate 54-46 (+ or - 1) in favor of Democrats, and in the House, depending on how many seats are open, will go something like 235-200 in favor of Democrats.
At 4/10/10 09:49 AM, iateamexican wrote: I slept in until 2pm today.
Fuck your kangaroo. I'm on spring break, and I've been working all fucking week. Barely even have time to do the homework assigned for the break, let alone sleep until 2
At 4/7/10 11:55 PM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/7/10 10:56 PM, TheThing wrote:I'm not talking exclusively about obesity. There are many unhealthy industries in this country.At 4/7/10 09:01 AM, Gunner-D wrote: I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.Because that's a stupid argument. Other nations that have fast food and other unhealthy restaurants are still pretty skinny
There are plenty of other countries that smoke more, and drink more than Americans, but are still much healthier overall than us.
Maybe the government should do their best to regulate those industries in order to make us healthier.
There aren't too many more regulations the government can put on the industries. It's up to the people to change their lives at this point.
You could argue all day that the greedy insurance companies are trying to do harm to us by raising premiums and make incredible profits from it (which I've yet to see any facts to show that higher premiums are the result of corporate greed),
In California, Wellpoint wanted to raise premiums 40%, even though they made a multi-Billion dollar profit in the last quarter alone. You're telling me that because of a smaller pool of customers, they couldn't dip into their profits a little bit and not raise rates so drastically?
Other companies around the country have done similar things, raising rates up to 20%-30%, far above cost of living increases and the loss of customers, even after posting massive profits.
but in the end, you'd have to blame the doctor for having such a high salary, or the nurse for working overtime.
Or the cost of their malpractice insurance, to some degree, also contributes to the rise in salaries/costs.
Someone you could blame are the unions for such escalating healthcare costs, but lets face it, no Democrat is going to get on the bad side of the unions.
I'll give you that, but there isn't going to be a Republican who is going to get on the bad side of corporations, either.
Insurance companies assess risk, and charge accordingly.
And there are people who are perfectly healthy, and low risk, but still can't afford insurance.
And according to your numbers, there are tens of millions of people who cannot afford health insurance today. You argue that government should aggregate these people and create a pool of customers that would create, in essense, a health insurance company for low income people. Fair enough.
Well, not so much an insurance company. The pooling basically allows this relatively large group of customers the ability to negotiate lower rates. In return for charging less, the company is guaranteed that many customers.
But if this was actually affordable in our free market society, wouldn't you think some entrepreneur would have seized this multi-million client market, even if the profits were less-than-enornmous? IMO yes.
There basically isn't going to be a profit in this. Since the government is the one setting up and running these pools, taxes will pay for the person(s) in charge. Otherwise, the fee attached to the running the pool would be too much, and the customers might as well just pay for the regular insurance.
why does government involvement in this issue (supplying low income Americans with affordable health insurance) make it affordable?
Answered above. They would remove the fees associated with running the pools, and instead spread that cost over every American, rather than just the few who are buying into the pools.
And to address the Medicare cuts, where is that money coming from (without dumping benefits, as the President said he wouldn't)? You can't expect corporations to be forced into an extreme tax burden without transferring the costs onto us. And without an extreme amount of expenses into bureaucracy, you can't take 50 billion dollars a year out of nowhere.
Yes you can, or at least a lot of money. You see, for the past 10 years, the government has given both a subsidy and a tax break to companies under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. I can't remember which, but the government is taking either the subsidy or the tax break away. This will save the government Billions. It was on the news probably a week ago about how huge companies will be losing a few hundred Million because of this. Of course, I don't know how they survived before the drug plan if they are complaining that much.
I'm not sure yet if doing this will cut all of the proposed $50 Billion a year, but I'm sure it takes a huge step to getting there.
maybe with this new bill that includes the clause for preventative medicine, we'll change that enough to become more fit.Nice. Do you think they could prescribe me a pill that would prevent me from criticizing the government?
Actually yeah, and it only takes 1 pill - cyanide
NOTE - don't take this as me wanting you to die. I'm only saying that the only way to prevent you from criticizing the government would be for you to die
At 4/7/10 11:10 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote:At 4/7/10 10:39 PM, TheThing wrote: How far are you?Just started playing today and am currently at Hades. I can't seem to play for too long periods of time because I suck and die a lot.
Trust me, if you're having a lot of trouble with Hades, you'll be breaking your controller by the end of the game.
I thought it was hilarious when it prompted me to set it to easy mode hahaha.
I thought it was a bit funny the few times it has done that to me too, although I always nut up and keep it on my current difficulty.
At 4/7/10 09:01 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Maybe people just don't want to be 'healthy', or only have a desire to be 'healthy' some of the time. Sometimes I think that the desire for instant gratification i.e. a drag of the cigarette / the next big mac / loungin instead of activity, outweigh a person's desire for health.
You may be right there for some people, but I'm talking about things like cancer and diabetes, or even high blood pressure. Monthly visits will greatly increase the chances that those are found earlier, and prevented/treated effectively.
Besides, a little indulgence in moderation doesn't hurt. But when you over do it, that's when it becomes dangerous. And who knows, maybe monthly doctor visits will change a person's outlook on taking another Big Mac.
I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.
Because that's a stupid argument. Other nations that have fast food and other unhealthy restaurants are still pretty skinny, both with and without socialized medicine. Which means it's the American lifestyle that's the problem, and maybe with this new bill that includes the clause for preventative medicine, we'll change that enough to become more fit.
At 4/7/10 06:51 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: Am I the only one annoyed by a handful of the camera angles in GoWIII? Epic game nonetheless, Kratos is pissed.
Sometimes the camera angles blow (like when you can't see a miniboss or you get obscured by a cyclops or something), but overall the camera isn't that bad.
How far are you?
At 4/6/10 01:41 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/5/10 11:07 PM, TheThing wrote: the American Revolution was just a group of whiny bitches ... I live in a world where people are retarded ... Wow, somebody ate the cynical pill, and washed it down with some un-supported-fact juice in a impossible-to-predict-so-we'll-just-have -to-wait-and-see cup.It is clear to me that you trust 'government', not referring solely to American democracy. When I ask "Why do you think we should have to pay for these things?", you respond, "Because we have to." I find cynicism to be one of my better attributes. And just to tell you, we are drinking from the same cup.
I'm cynical about people in general, not government. I believe, for the most part, that the more competent people are in Washington, making decisions. I don't trust Joe Six Pack to understand and assess a complex political situation, then create a comprehensive plan to fix it and prevent future problems, all while taking into consideration the possible outcomes such a plan would have on the political and social landscapes of America.
Do you have any proof? I mean, I can't dig up proof for my sideSee what I mean?
It was an unfinished thought that I thought was finished. The numbers are out there, I just don't have the pages bookmarked. Anything I find will be what you find using Google, so if you want to fact check me, go ahead. I already gave my disclaimer that the numbers were rough estimates of what I remembered.
At 4/6/10 04:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 4/5/10 11:29 PM, drDAK wrote:Yeah because they RATION CARE. They say "yep, we're spending this much money on healthcare, anything above this amount gets cut off. Oh look we don't spend much LOL"
First off, you should trust him; he's a doctor.
And secondly, wow, I understand this is the internet, but I thought that the Newgrounds forum wouldn't be so full supported, highly untrue facts.
Yes, there are long delays for surgeries and similar procedures, but A) you don't pay for it, and B) illnesses and diseases are caught much earlier, since you go to the doctor every month, rather than whenever you need a physical or something feels wrong.
That's another problem Americans have - we wait until it's too late before seeing the doctor. We'd be a lot healthier if we had monthly visits, but many can't afford that, so they only go when they feel really bad.
meanwhile Canadians have to have a raffle system to determine who gets a doctors appointment this week.
Unlike in America, where you need to win the lottery to get a doctor's appointment.
He said that the congressional budget office made a claim about the finance involved with the health bill so I fucking wanted him to show me where the CBO ITSELF said this.
Fact check me. My numbers and facts aren't coming from my ass (unlike your's). Hell, the numbers I'm giving are being said on Fox News (since I do tune in from time to time). The only numbers I'm not sure of are the amount get subsidies and the subsequent amount going into the pools.
Retard
Ad hominid attacks never make you look intelligent, or at the very least like your side is the correct one.
At 4/5/10 01:35 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote: So? The people are already paying for anyone who walks into an emergency room without a way to pay for it. Legally, doctors can't turn away anyone from the emergency room, and if the person can't pay, we do. So in reality, that system would reduce costs to some degree.It would reduce costs because of pooling (remember, these people havent paid into MassHealth at all) or because they would receive worse care? Clarify.
Because of pooling. Emergency room care is emergency room care. They check injuries first, not wallets.
subsidies and insurance pooling parts of the bill don't take effect immediately. But when the government is paying a substantial part of the premiums, I imagine the people who couldn't afford it last month will be able to afford it when the system gets in place.The government paying for premiums how? With tax money?
Refer to my "we pay for what we don't use" argument.
I believe that is unjust, and part of the American Revolution is about fighting unjust taxation... which is inevitable with this bill.
As much as I love this country, and love the ideas the Constitution set in motion, the American Revolution was just a group of whiny bitches. Even though the Americans were British subjects, they were paying significantly less in taxes than those who were in England. And even after the Seven Years war, which was fought on American soil to protect Americans, the Colonists refused to pay for it.
Hell, the Tea Act lowered the taxes on British tea, to prevent smuggling.
So you're saying that we should make sure that the person with treatable cancer shouldn't get the ability to treat it? You're saying that pregnant women shouldn't get insurance because babies are "preexistanting conditions?"No... but obviously you don't recognize that fact that there is so much garbage in the bill was rushed in with all the common sense practical ideas for healthcare reform.
Had your side said "hey, this is going to pass no matter what we do, so why don't we, instead of complaining about it, actually try to get some stuff we want in there. I mean, clearly there are a few on-the-fence Democrats who might agree with us", then maybe the garbage would have been taken out.
Explain to me why we should trust POLITIANS to define the boundries of disease and illness.
Tell me why we should trust greedy corporations who seek profit over helping people to decide where that boundary lies.
Preexisting condition was s term created by the health insurance industry to make it easier to turn people away. All the government is doing is saying "you can't deny somebody a policy because they came to you after they had a problem". The government isn't saying that the companies can't charge a high premium or whatever, but the person can't be turned away.
These numbers really mean nothing, they are promotional. You'll find that much more...
Do you have any proof? I mean, I can't dig up proof for my side, but the Democrat's talking point is that this bill will cover 32 million people who don't have insurance right now, and, like I said, the specifics on who's going into pools and getting subsidies are rough recollections.
Besides, who cares how many people pool? The government won't be paying much to run the pools, and they don't contribute into the pools at all. It's the subsidies that will cost the most, and based on the requirements of the bill, about 6 million will be receiving them.
But alas, you won't find anywhere in the bill stating that these numbers are going to be available to the public
Well yeah, the bill wouldn't state that. It's up to those in Congress to talk with the CBO to figure out those numbers, then relay them back to the public.
so we can actually know the figures when they begin to skyrocket.
They'll grow as the population does. In fact, subsidies may shrink (as a percentage of the population) in coming years, as the economy recovers and those people get jobs that may/may not have benefits. And with those subsidies going right to private industry, that will stimulate the kind of economic growth the Conservatives masturbate to.
This will be another secretive and non-transparent waste of money sinking us further and further into debt... but we're used to that by now, so we might as well pretend that the government's estimation is spot on, right?
Wow, somebody ate the cynical pill, and washed it down with some un-supported-fact juice in a impossible-to-predict-so-we'll-just-have -to-wait-and-see cup.
And the Medicare savings ARE NOT the government's to play with. That is our money out of a direct payroll tax and we should have that tax cut if we are saving so many billions.
Fine, you can have the money back on your paycheck. But don't be surprised if your income tax is raised. It's either you pay for it now, or you pay later. Or you don't see any deficit/debt reduction.
I could go on, but that would just be laboring the point; the point that we all pay for things we don't use ourselves.Oh lets add another one onto the list, shall we? While we are at it, lets buy up the oil industry and regulate fuel prices, and then buy up the food industry and regulate food prices. What don't you think the government should control?
Alright, what the fuck are you talking about? The things I listed are common, everyday, accepted things that we pay for in taxes, whether we use them or not.
This idea that the government is taking over healthcare is ridiculous. All they are doing is paying for those who can't afford it, along with adding some consumer protections. They aren't regulating prices, they aren't taking over the companies.
Fuck that, I know people directly that need help financially but I myself cannot afford to help them out when budgeting and frugality have become a way of life since our last 'economic crisis'.
Can you clarify this, because what I'm reading is that, since people are cutting back and saving money, you can't afford to help people?
You talk so idealistically about money
No, I talk idealistically about people. I live in a world where people are retarded. They would rather donate $100 to a charity to help the poor than see a $50 increase in taxes to help the poor, and the government is probably more transparent than a lot of charities.
This isn't just a moral debate it is also a financial one as well.
I tied the 2 together. Would you give up $100 a month of your money to help someone in need? Morality and finances each play a role.
Im not saying "transitional" social services are for everyone.
But you are suggesting that America should replace continual services with temporary services, so they would have to be for everyone.
No, I'm just ignoring that fact that you equate the cost of abuse to the cost of correcting the abuse, which is very inaccurate
Look, I don't know how many more employees would be needed, which means that I don't know the cost of hiring the amount needed to curb the fraud, nor do I know the amount of fraud that goes on, which means I can't definitively say that hiring more people to combat false claims would save more money than just paying out the false claims. Either one could be cheaper, and they both have their own repercussions with the public.
You are paying for it. That is if you are a taxpaying American citizen.
Refer to my "we pay for what we don't use" argument.
At 4/5/10 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote:Oh hi
It's going to be hard to say exactly what this bill will cost, especially since it's a work in progress, with things being added and subtracted all the time (and that was an argument from 2 months ago). Also, he doesn't take into account any reduction in costs this bill might have, so there could be savings there.
Well fuck your kangaroo
Rather than spending spring break having fun (or at least doing minimal work), I'm now going to spend all day at a job, then come home and sleep for a few hours before I get woken up to do scholarships and homework.
There goes my GOW3 over-spring-break platinum
At 4/4/10 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote:At 4/4/10 02:40 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: The CBO even predicts that this will cut the deficit by $13 Billion a yearCan I see some proof
The number has been tossed around political talk shows. The only proof I'd show you would be no different than the proof you'd get by googling it.
The only way it reduces the deficit is because they scored what Congress sent them.
Well, yeah. I mean, the CBO can't do accounting on imaginary bills, or add in bills that may be germane and are on the docket.
Yeah, imaginary deficit reduction!
You could also say that there's a $15 Billion increase in defense spending (I made that up), so anything the healthcare bill saves is gone.
The numbers the CBO were on the bill being discussed - the Healthcare bill. So anything they say is what that particular bill (not any other bill) will do.
Logical thinking - you should try it some time.
At 4/4/10 10:17 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: it gives a subsidy to buy insurance to those who can't afford insurance, or you can pool your money with others.Thats why it says "Sign up for MassHealth" while you are in the emergency room getting care already.
So? The people are already paying for anyone who walks into an emergency room without a way to pay for it. Legally, doctors can't turn away anyone from the emergency room, and if the person can't pay, we do. So in reality, that system would reduce costs to some degree.
Do you think the people that couldn't afford insurance last month will be able to afford it now?
Well, no. Because those subsidies and insurance pooling parts of the bill don't take effect immediately. But when the government is paying a substantial part of the premiums, I imagine the people who couldn't afford it last month will be able to afford it when the system gets in place.
And do you think a healthcare provider will be able to turn someone away for any reason now?
So you're saying that we should make sure that the person with treatable cancer shouldn't get the ability to treat it? You're saying that pregnant women shouldn't get insurance because babies are "preexistanting conditions?"
This is really an expansion of entitlements, which will cost the taxpayer much more.
Yes it is, and no it won't. Most people (I believe the number is 26 million, although that may be slightly off) will be in the "insurance pool", meaning that very few people (~6 million) will be receiving the subsidies from the government. So there really won't be that much paid out. And with Medicare being cut $50 Billion a year, a lot of the costs are covered.
Whereas I have to pay for my own insurance because I have a decent job AND pay for someone elses to have insurance too.
You also pay for police protection right? How many times have you called the cops in your life? Personally, I don't think it's fair for me to have to pay for the policemen that somebody else uses. Same goes for the fire department. And I'm rarely ever in the library. I don't usually drive places, so I don't know why I have to pay for the roads, or why I have to pay for roads hundreds or thousands of miles away. I'm also in New Jersey - far away from anywhere Border Patrol works.
I could go on, but that would just be laboring the point; the point that we all pay for things we don't use ourselves.
I don't give a fuck about the moral debate
Um, that's what it is - whether it's moral to help somebody when they are in need by giving up your hard-earned money.
Open up state hospitals, food kitchens, and public housing for transitional purposes, but I don't agree with random money handouts - it is much more liable to abuse.
Look, even in the healthiest economies, there's still a certain percentage (goes between 2% and 4%) that are just unable to work. Mental or physical disability, severe social problems, or just unable to work and make a profit (transportation costs, etc). So your "transitional" social services would never work on these people.
WIC is abused, EBT money are abused, and section 8 public housing is abused. This brand new healthcare system will be too.I'm not against welfare to those in despair, but the abuse is growing larger everyday. It is undeniable that if someone knows there is free money out there, they are going to collect, tell their friends, and the scheme will grow.Of course, the way to combat that would be to hire more workers to thoroughly check all claims, but that could cost just as much.
Way to avoid my point. I understand that there's corruption. But there are 2 options - allow it to happen, or expand the workforce so that more care can go into each case to make sure it's legitimate. Both cost money, it just depends where it's going.
All the while, neighborhoods are getting cleaned up, police are getting more money, and the "ghettos" are getting rennovated.
And this is relevant because...?
At 4/4/10 12:48 AM, Gunner-D wrote:At 4/3/10 11:29 PM, TheThing wrote: But generally speaking, the hand outs aren't very much. That's why you don't see people on welfare living much further than the projects and ghettos taking public transportation shopping at the dollar store.Not exactly. WIC (local food stamp organization) gives more food money to a couple with one child for a week than I pay for food for my family (girlfriend and son) in 3 weeks.
Can I see some proof? At least for what food stamps pay out. I was always under the impression from my experiences that food stamps pay out very little.
Also, the term "ghetto" and "projects" are relative to personal experience,
Clearly, I'm talking about where the real welfare recipients are - suburban America. </sarcasm>
I'm talking about low income housing or just incredibly poor areas.
and much of this housing is government subsidized as well.
I doubt that. It may be government built, but it's cheaper because the land was cheaper. In fact, a lot of projects and low income housing are private development firms.
And in Massachusetts, under the Romney-care system, it is insanely easy to get the state to pay your medical bills, especially if you have a child.
Well, much of Romney-care is now national care. Which means that the state doesn't pay for your bills. Rather, it gives a subsidy to buy insurance to those who can't afford insurance, or you can pool your money with others.
I'm not against welfare to those in despair, but the abuse is growing larger everyday. It is undeniable that if someone knows there is free money out there, they are going to collect, tell their friends, and the scheme will grow.
Of course, the way to combat that would be to hire more workers to thoroughly check all claims, but that could cost just as much.
Premiums dropping? They will probably near the same level, and potentially float there before creeping higher and higher again. If we are going to cover more people, we will be paying new and higher taxes, plain and simple. I'm not sure if anyone can argue that this reform will actually save us money.
It's impossible to predict where the premiums will go, so we're both wrong. But, logically, premiums will drop since insurance companies will have a much larger group to draw from. I mean, if they can justify a 40% increase by saying there is a smaller base, they should drop premiums because of a larger base. Unless they're greedy and stupid.
As for the taxes, the costs are put on the most expensive plans, on firms (maybe, can't remember), and cuts from Medicare. The CBO even predicts that this will cut the deficit by $13 Billion a year, or at the very least protect more people from getting sick or injured.
Regarding Warforger and SadisiticMonkey:
It's a bit of chicken and the egg.
On one hand, War is right - a monopoly, in a free market, can arise without political power by buying and underpricing everyone out, as evidence in the case of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
But at the same time, Monkey is right - a monopoly can arise when a corporation lobbies the government to pass preferential laws and regulations to make it monopoly.
Now, it depends on the corporation on whether it is the former or the latter, and even then it may be hard to tell.
At 4/3/10 07:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: if the factory owners could get away with paying children less on their own, why pay them more with age?
Well, as the children mature, they're able to do more things. I doubt that a 10 year old can lift as much as a 14 year old, so they'll get paid more since they're doing more productive labor. It's also incentive to stay at the factory longer, rather than just hop from job to job. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that I have no idea what kind of labor that chart is tracking, and from what time period.
Hell why not make it 1 penny a day?
Because no one would ever send their children to work there. People work to live, and even back then, a penny a day wouldn't help sustain a family.
but it is not possible to underpay someone under free conditions simply because you want to cut some off the top for yourself.
Look at John D. Rockefeller. What he did was undercut his pricing on oil by slashing wages (and a few other cost-saving methods, but mostly through wages). this pushed competitors out of business, but left his workers hurting for cash. If they went on strike, he would just fire them and hire new workers who needed any money at all.
Child labor wasn't ended because "the market" offered the kid's parent an opportunity to make enough money and send them to school, it was stopped because of the PUBLIC OUTRCY, UNIONIZING and LAWS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.You're arguing by assertion
No, he's arguing by truth.
public outcry about child labor would have never taken place if there weren't a large portion of children who weren't already NOT in the work force,
The government also mandated that fire escapes be installed in all multi-story buildings, not because a majority of people already had them, but because very few had them.
Same with meat inspection. It wasn't mandated because factors made sure their meat was fresh, clean, and full of exactly whatever they said they put in it; the laws were passed because of the complete opposite.
And of course, the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of alcohol.
Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean that laws can't be passed to make it illegal.
And how was that possible? Improvements in capital.
Technically, it was deprovements (?) in capital. The Great Depression forced adults to work for the same wages as children, making child labor unnecessary.
As soon as 1802You're confusing private factories with parish based factories, i.e. Government run factories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act s
Maybe in England. But a lot of atrocities done to child laborers in America were from private industry. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no schooling, loss of limbs, and usually given the most dangerous jobs.
Factory work and coal mining was some of the hardest, most dangerous work you could do at the time in return for stable employment... for as long as you could last.Coal mining is not a factory job, it's resource extraction. People mined for coal prior to the industrial revolution, and yes, Conditions were bad; bad for anyone regardless of the time period and who was actually entering the coal mine. I fail to see why coal mining is relevant.
Maybe because you said that it was an improvement to farm work? Coal mining was also ramped up in during the Industrial Revolution across the world, so more laborers (including children) were needed.
The laws started in 1802 while child labor went on into the 20th century.Aside from the points I made before, Those laws were not lobbied for by the children or the women themselves. but by Wealthier adult male laborers working in the same industries. There was no compassion behind it, it was nothing more than a tariff, an effort to make certain groups more expensive to employ in order to bolster your own wages.
You do realize that women and children didn't have a voice in the government, whether through protests and lobbying, or through voting.
Besides, what you have is a theory, or at the very least an idea that may or may not have been what a majority of child labor law supporters were thinking when they voted for these laws.
American laborers were still paid more than British or other European laborers.
It could be because Europe was going through an economic depression, what with the Potato Famine and widespread drought all over the continent. Besides, just because you're the tallest midget doesn't mean that you aren't a midget.
Suffrage - The right to vote is a political matter.
It still took the same activism and protesting to get suffrage as child labor. Besides, it's a social issue - having women, minorities, and the poor the same rights as wealthy white males.
Slavery - Slavery was unsustainable on a free market.
You apparently missed the part where the American South's economy was destroyed once abolition went into effect. For a large plantation or a wealthy man (such as a very successful lawyer, banker, or businessman), slaves were easy labor that was infinitely cheaper than hiring someone.
You also had laws in the south prohibiting the construction of factories which could have employed freemen.
Ummm...no? There just wasn't a desire for factories. It was much easier and more profitable for southerners to own or work on a farm/plantation then to own a factory or work in one.
Freedom of Religion - Freedom of Religion came when PEOPLE (Not the state) refused to support a government that promoted intolerance. People changed before the laws did, and so thanking the state for protecting people against the state itself is absurd.
Almost as absurd as your argument? Many people were happy under a single-religion government back then, and the few countries left that do do that have citizens who love it. It wasn't the fact that the government was sending people on holy wars. It started when a few people (definitely not a majority; probably numbering in the low hundreds) got together, came to America, and founded Pennsylvania and Maryland. Eventually the hate of the Puritan way of life led to Rhode Island joining PA and MD.
Civil Rights - Segregation was a government enforced policy.
I will admit, it was, to a degree, a government policy. But it was also upheld by whites that weren't in the government. It wasn't government sponsored lynching that kept blacks from speaking up or acting in an "unsuitable" way. It wasn't government sponsored mobs that attacks peaceful demonstrations at lunch counters. So while it was a government fostered policy, it was also a public supported policy until the apathetic saw the brutality faced by blacks.
At 4/3/10 10:40 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The hand outs are incredible.
Of there's going to be corruption when money to be made very easily. Look at what the banks (and subsequently, the people) did - they all saw free, cheap money, so they took it, whether they should have or not.
But generally speaking, the hand outs aren't very much. That's why you don't see people on welfare living much further than the projects and ghettos taking public transportation shopping at the dollar store.
And besides, the private sector just got 32 million new customers, so why are you complaining? Premiums will drop, and you'll be dangerously sick less often.
Only 1 Trophy away from God of War 3 Platinum. I just have to beat the game on Titan difficulty, which should be pretty tough.
