Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/13/09 04:40 PM, Ericho wrote: I didn't know this was actually happening. I seriously hope nothing really comes out of this.

Why?

At 9/13/09 10:11 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: hate speech

That's only in Europe; nobody likes hate speech, but I think the founders understood that, just like in situations like this, it would be easy to twist someone's words into hate speech for the purpose of silencing dissent. As long as they do not incite violence, even the most repugnant spewers of hate have a right to speak in the US.

At 9/12/09 05:31 AM, Giijo wrote:

At 9/12/09 04:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/12/09 03:18 AM, TheShrike wrote:

4: The democrats never did such disrespect to Bush.

Omg, LOL! @ the sarcasm!

That's not sarcasm, that's the fucking truth, you tool.

I enjoy how you seem to have been living under a rock the entire time we were in Iraq. If that era is an indication of respect for the president, then I would hate to see what Democratic scorn would look like...

At 9/10/09 08:35 PM, OnyxMyr wrote: Athiest. I believe in what science can prove, and if you tell me God exists, you either have some form of hard evidence or I'll assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy too.

Do you have evidence to prove that the other guy believes in the Tooth Fairy?

At 9/12/09 01:59 PM, CrabPope wrote: Tea parties are like, the gayest form of protest.

The guys throwing crates into Boston harbor might disagree.

At 9/10/09 05:59 PM, CassCassXXX wrote: I'm sure you've probably heard about it by now, probably have seen the video too, so I won't make you read a whole bunch of text summarizing it, I'll just get to my questions:

#1 - Do you think ACORN really supports tax evasion and prostitution?

Maybe not as a group, but I'm sure they have at least a few members that would give the law enforcement community pause in this respect. After all, we just caught one on tape...

#2 - Should ACORN be getting tax payer dollars?

No. Private groups that push very specific political agendas should not be receiving public funds to do so.

#3 - Did the girl and guy who posed as a pimp and prostitute have a hidden agenda?

Oh no, the girl made the agenda not-so-hidden when she talked about it on the Glen Beck show today. You can't have a hidden agenda that everyone knows about, because then it wouldn't really be hidden, would it?

That said, I do think what they did payed off.

#4 - Should the ACORN workers who were willing to help them be fired?

YES, and I would hope that criminal charges would be filed against them. This was some sick sh*t that they implicity went along with.

#5 - Is this story even news worthy?

Yes, for the above reasons. ACORN is a large organization with political ties. What they do is important - if somewhat suspect.

Seems to me that we've drifted a little far afield here...

At 9/10/09 02:11 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: -People who already have insurance don't have to change their policy for any reason.

The problem is that, as has happened in other countries where this has been tried, is that all the rhetoric to the contrary in the world doesn't change the fact that the government ends up out-competing the other companies in the long run and driving them out of business, leaving only the public "option" - this is a backdoor route to socialized medicine, and everyone in congress knows it.

I would straight up edit this part out of the bill. We don't need a government option - we need to significantly bring down the cost of private insurance by enacting tort reforms to reduce the amount bled from the system by excessive malpractice settlements, cutting business taxes on insurers and providers, and offering incentives for insurance companies to cover the lower class (perhaps treating it as tax-deductible, seeing as this could almost be considered charity in some cases).

-People without insurance, or who can not afford private insurance, will be offered a not-for-profit "public option;"

See above.

-This public option will be self-sufficient, not funded by government taxes, for the purpose of ensuring a fair market for private insurers.

The starting capital has to come from somewhere if we have a public option. Redact this for the reasons stated above.

-Illegal immigrants who need health care will not be covered by insurers or by the government.

Enforcement is the real bone of contention here; I'm not sure how this could be implemented given the ease with which one can fabricate or steal an identity these days, and especially how to do so without clashing with our humanitarian beliefs.

-Insurance companies will compete for business in an "open exchange" accessible to the public, for the purpose of better assuring affordable quality care.

This by itself could be a good idea, though I would take it a step further by allowing insurance companies of all kinds to operate on a national level.

-An insurance company can not drop your coverage if you become seriously ill;

I would pretty much frame these exactly as phrased, though I think I would tighten up the language to prevent loopholes from coming about. It should be common sense that people should get what they pay for in terms of insurance - making people pay for it and then denying them the promised protection at the last minute is just cruel, and should be subject to civil legal penalties.

-Nor may an insurance company deny you coverage fora pre-existing condition;

I'm not really sure where to go with this one.

-Nor may an insurance company diminish your coverage, or place arbitrary limits on how much money you receive for your care;

I'm not sure where to go with this one, either. Diminishing coverage could be construed as denying coverage by degrees, which would make it subject to the commensurate legal penalties.

-Employee health coverage will be a prerequisite for businesses, especially large corporations

Tie health coverage to the maintenance of a business license, and reduce business tax rates for each business by an amount inversely proportional to the amount of coverage provided (so that better coverage is incentivised by a tax credit or the equivalent).

-Small businesses will be offered affordable options for the coverage they provide.

That's a bit vague, and I would hope that the exchange would cover this part.

-Health coverage will become a mandate for all citizens, whether private or public.

I'm really not sure how to enforce this without harming the poorest citizens, whether or not a public option is included in the final bill. It might be possible to require that people provide proof of insurance for any child before receiving a birth certificate and social security number; this provides an incentive to get insurance early (since not having a birth certificate or SSN makes life difficult later on when it becomes necessary documentation) without straining the poor needlessly with fine-based punishments. Dropping coverage would render these documents invalid for certain purposes, so people would have a good reason to maintain their insurance.

-The reforms will not add one dime to the American deficit, now or ever. The President will not sign the bill otherwise.

With no public option, this is easy. Assessing even a small tax or cutting the excess from the federal bureaucracy could easily provide the necessary funds to run the exchange. We just have to make sure to keep the bureaucracy behind the exchange to a minimum (ha ha, good luck with that) to keep costs in check.

-The reforms will not increase the taxes of the middle or lower class;

See above.

-Nor will the reforms place senior citizens at risk by withdrawing funds from Medicare.

See above.

At 9/9/09 10:40 PM, fli wrote: I mean,
why can't these guys just vote in medicinal marijuana laws in, vote for gay civil rights, vote for funding for comprehensive sex education, and etc?

Because a lot of people don't believe in those things (at least in the forms in which they have been presented to the voting public), and like it or not an elected official has to appeal to his base if he wants to stay an elected official.

At 9/4/09 10:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Change really seems to scare Americans.
All change is for some reason viewed as BAD, often simply because it is different.
Probably a big reason for the civil war...after all , getting rid of slavery was definately CHANGE !

I really love how those (GOP) who've gotten America into the mess its in, are behind stopping anyone who has an idea ,on how to possibly get them out of trouble & help all citizens at the same time.

I had to stop reading here. If you really think that the genesis of the current financial crisis can be attributed to one party and one party alone, then I ask that you send us a postcard from that magical fantasy world you're living in - because, frankly, it's plain to see for those of us out here in the real world that the progenitors of today's recession were as diverse in their political affiliations as they were lacking in fiscal prescience.

At 9/6/09 01:48 PM, BrandonXDD wrote: communism is a good when seen on paper. and i do agree, american propaganda is responsible for its negative views.

I would think that it would have more to do with the fact that communism has never worked in real life, and that most professedly communistic countries have either gone bankrupt or devolved into central dictatorships of some form or another.

At 9/1/09 11:55 PM, Freedomblades wrote: why to people automaticlly assume just because universal health care is abit slow in canada it means its gunna be slow in the US?

Canada isn't the only example...

:Pritty much the payment would change thats all. How does this automaticlly make people work slower? its the same wages, same machines, same everything.

Most of the doctors I know agree that reimbursements are going to drop substantially under a government system, considering that they almost lose money over medicare/medicaid patients.

At 8/28/09 11:45 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Don't you love the Internet? I found this in under 15 seconds. Basically I guess it means they stick to republican views a lot.

Done in one, wouldn't you say?

In Communist Russia, Mary Jo Kopechne outlives you!

At 8/11/09 05:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/11/09 05:05 PM, b0b3rt wrote:

Right, because furthering the ban on weapons, monitoring families without consent in their own homes, and shutting down somebodies 30th birthday party because they were afraid it would turn into a rave isn't socialist at all.

It's authoriatarian not socialist. You can be authoritarian right wing as well as authoritarian left wing. Currently, the UK is Authoritarian Centre Right.

I can't even imagine how you have to stretch your imagination to come to the conclusion that the UK is center right. The amount of government control of health care and the size of their welfare system in proportion to their GDP puts them squarely on the economic left.

How did Newgrounds attract so many atheists? Seems odd to me that such a frequently visited website would have a much more representative demographic composition. Is it just that we reach more secular western countries, appeal more to the hedonism of youth, or something else entirely?

Catholic Christian, though my views are not as strongly sectarian as some.

Because two wrongs make a right, amirite?

Republicans: Typically socially conservative, economically lassiez-faire, and espousing small government, the Republican party sees personal responsibility as the most important trait of an American. Republicans are frequently torn between reducing the size of government and maintaining what they see as the ethical fabric of America, and see the Constitution as a sacrosanct government-limiting document with a somewhat narrow interpretation.

Democrats: Typically socially liberal, economically regulatory, and espousing more expansive government, the Democratic party sees social justice as the overarching goal of the American lifestyle. Democrats are frequently torn between providing a safety net for the downtrodden and giving them to tools to establish themselves outside of perceived "glass ceilings", and see the Constitution as a living document designed to enumerate personal rights with a somewhat broad interpretation.

Of course, these definitions don't cover all the variations that can occur, but that would honestly take more time to eneumerate than I have in a day.

Looks to me like Obama is starting to get really good at writing himself into a corner when it comes to stated policy. Iraq isn't the only issue where he's had to move the goalposts; economic stimulus and health care come to mind.

At 7/23/09 02:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/23/09 12:24 AM, dySWN wrote: And, with nationalized health care, we foot the bill. Do the math.

But we don't have nationalized healthcare yet, and I don't see a ton of people flocking to countries that do just to get their HIV treated. So in short, you have no evidence that what you're saying will occur yay for the "slippery slope"!

The fact that the government is pursuing what could be argued to be nationalized health care answers the former claim, and the fact that hundreds already travel here yearly specifically for treatment refutes the latter. I could be wrong about my assessment, but somehow established trends seem to imply otherwise.

Also, I was under the impression that slippery slope fallacies required more than one step to be true fallacies...?

At 7/23/09 12:32 AM, TheladiesMan47 wrote: who cares

Wow. Definitive.

Care to elaborate?

IMHO, leadership is developed through a combination of demonstrably good judgment and the charisma to convince others to follow that judgment to its logical conclusions. Whether that charisma is made manifest through friendly or unfriendly means doesn't seem to be as pertinent to history's judgment of a leader as the outcome; Patton was a widely known ass, but almost no one denies that he got the job done.

At 7/22/09 07:09 AM, kosz wrote: Do we exist? And if we do is it possible to define what it means to exist? Is existence mental or physical? Permanent or temporary? For every seeming answer I find 20 more questions! I don't think there is a definite answer but I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think!

Rene Descartes would like a word with you, good sir.

At 7/23/09 12:21 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 7/23/09 12:13 AM, TheladiesMan47 wrote: If we have national health care this is going to destroy us.

How so? I see no relevance.

Treatment for HIV is expensive, prolonged, and often fails to take (even forgiving being unable to completely cure the virus, many people cannot tolerate the drugs or fail to take them consistency).

And, with nationalized health care, we foot the bill. Do the math.

At 7/21/09 02:42 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/21/09 12:37 PM, KZ005 wrote: This supposed "Health Care Bill" will destroy the health care field as we know it. Obama is a fool for thinking this will work. Of course I've thought he was a fool even before he was elected, but that's just my opinion.

Most other modern countries have a UHC, and many of their health care systems are better than our own. There are some that are worse as well. But overall, I'd say having a UHC system is much better than not having one, and having millions of people that can't get coverage. This isn't even getting to the pre-existing conditions that most, if not all insurance companies have that totally screw over people.

Ah, the old bandwagon approach. Too bad that it fails as an argument to adress the minor issue of where the money will come from for UHC in the US, what with out trillion dollar deficits and current economic conditions.

Also, I would like to point out that a lot of people from those countries with UHC come here because our private health care system will get to them in a timely manner and promotes innovation in the field of medicine. Government bureaucracies are terribly inefficient, and bureaucracies established to manage medical care are no different.

Clearly, some people just can't use the search bar...

We'll get taxed out the ears for less efficient care. I also think that the public option will rapidly become the only option, but I suppose only time will tell.

At 7/15/09 05:01 PM, FlyMusik wrote: At 7/15/09 07:46 AM, digitalboola wrote:

Since when did being cautiously optimistic about humanity and/or the future become so taboo around here? It's not like we aren't working on solving most of the problems mentioned here, and it's not like humanity is doomed if one of these things comes to fruition. We've survived famines, plagues, the ice age, and even the ill-intended ingenuity of one another as expressed by war and crime - and yet, somehow, now we're magically incapable of surviving a repeat?

Somehow, I don't see the point of looking at the glass as half full here. We should be thinking about solutions, not wringing our hands over what ifs.

Second overpopulation thread in as many days...

Nope, still not very compelling when many first world countries almost have the opposite problem.