They are very cool, though some of the helmets are too chunky for my taste. My favorite outfit has to be:
Just cuz its so ridiculously over the top. Though I like it better in blood red, for maximum 'I'm ****ing Satan b*tches!'
How far have you got so far? That ass dicks you over on every planet. And every time he does I'd go 'that mother****er. I'm gonna kill him!' Its Gary Oak levels of persistent douchbaggery.
Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
Can someone please explain Obamacare for me, as a non-US person I have no idea wtf it is and why everyone is annoyed about it.
It's a horribly complex, stupid mess made worse by repeated concessions and changes as well as poor implementation, in an attempt to provide affordable coverage for the approximately 15 million Americans who cannot currently afford it.
One part of the law prohibits insurance companies from dropping coverage on people with pre-existing conditions and other miscellaneous factors that are generally outside of a person's control. This may seem to work against the interests of insurance companies since they make more money by having healthy payers who do not get sick as much, but the reality is that the chronically ill cost us the most economically, whether they're having to make ER visits, file for medical bankruptcy, or going without and physically suffering (estimates on business loss due to illness and missed work costs us billions annually).
The current rolled out part includes a kind of market exchange for health care providers that citizens can browse, and those without health coverage by a certain date must pay a fine and can expect some tax complications as well. This exchange is plagued by poor implementation, and most people are pretty much unclear about it's benefit, since people can readily shop and compare insurance companies already on various third party sites. Additionally, the large majority of Americans have never been known to be smart shoppers (Hail, Wal-Mart); hence why this market is a big stupid idea.
Businesses have another obligation under ObamaCare; those with more than X number of employees must provide medical care (X being a number I don't recall at the moment, but it's somewhere between 20-50+) or pay a fine at the end of the year. The fine is around 2k, while the average cost of insuring a worker is around 10k, so the benefit to the employer is pretty obvious. Right now, a common practice is employers dropping their group insurance plans so that workers are forced to provide their own with the newly available Obamarket.
Another facet for businesses is that insurance must be given to workers who exceed 28 hours per week (which you might recognize is part time; full time is about 36-40/week). The natural business response to this is to simply cut people's hours to nothing, mine included. Way to go, ObamaCare.
So basically, 'Murica has an even worse health care structure than it did, with costs already climbing, bureaucratic mess obfuscating, and nothing even remotely resembling the medical systems that all other first-world countries have at this time and some arguably third world countries.
I expect the next phase will be implementation of the Logan's Run protocols to reduce costs drastically.
One part of the law prohibits insurance companies from dropping coverage on people with pre-existing conditions and other miscellaneous factors that are generally outside of a person's control
Originally posted by SJones91109
Ironically, this is the ONLY part of Obamacare or any "universal healthcare" system that I will ever support.
It's the only part of ObamaCare I support as well, but I believe a socialized medicine system, smartly done, is better for America as a whole. We're throwing away billions on medical costs and yet health-wise we're behind just about every first world country. You can complain about "waiting for procedures" in places like Canada and the UK, but they do not have medical debt approaching 50% in their population and they rank higher in WHO studies and statistics for many years.
The Scandinavian countries, which are bastions of democratic socialism, offer more than just universal health care and offer free schooling, yearly vacations, adult ed, etc. and look where that's got them. Higher levels of happiness in polls and studies; better performance in schooling, and their women are generally hotter. Oh and they live longer.
MURICA, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
but I believe a socialized medicine system, smartly done
The Scandinavian countries, which are bastions of democratic socialism, offer more than just universal health care and offer free schooling, yearly vacations, adult ed, etc. and look where that's got them. Higher levels of happiness in polls and studies; better performance in schooling, and their women are generally hotter. Oh and they live longer.
Originally posted by SJones91109
How, pray tell, would you do it "smartly"?
Emulate more successful examples. Realize that the current system is not doing the American people any favors. Stop watching Fox News.
Last year, I spent 3 weeks in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland to see for myself, their so called "high" standards of living. Believe me when I tell you, what they define as a high standard of living, would be pretty basic here. America's definition and that of the rest of the world isn't the same. Furthermore, you keep saying "free" when you should be saying "redistributed" into the form of 50-55% taxes.
I'm not sure I follow this here. Their social programs are more effective than ours in exchange for a higher tax rate, and the payoff is in the many studies and polls taken by WHO and others for years. Whether or not they have 50' plasma flatscreens, Supersized value meals, or the budget to make 100+ million dollar movies is irrelevant to this fact. And I'd rather pay higher taxes knowing that my health and education is covered for life and that there's a strong social safety net if something unfortunate happens, instead of advocating Social Darwinism and using things like 'entitled' when it comes to right to education and health.
If you have a bout of acute pancreatitis, which is a painful condition that leaves you in excruciating pain and hospitalized for up to a week, good luck with that 10k+ bill you got instead of having higher taxes. And that's not counting lost income due to missing work.
And the number of Americans covered by group insurance through work was going long before ObamaCare showed up: Link here.
And premiums are climbing as a result.
Source: Forbes.com
So I don't understand the idea that it's not broke now. It seems like a lot of hype over "tax increase" when already a disproportionate number of people are suffering from crippling medical debt.
I'm not understanding your logic. The "free" system of Europe is simply transferred into other forms of payments, whether it's high taxes, insane prices for everything, etc. And I guess we'd really have to sit down and define "standard of living" because the definitions in Europe and the US differ. Furthermore, the countries you are describing have less than 10-15 million people? Can you give me a good example of a country with a population that at least mirrors ours to a certain extent? And don't you dare say Canada.
Originally posted by SJones91109
I'm not understanding your logic. The "free" system of Europe is simply transferred into other forms of payments, whether it's high taxes, insane prices for everything, etc. And I guess we'd really have to sit down and define "standard of living" because the definitions in Europe and the US differ.
I realize that the cost is distributed. Nowhere have I indicated otherwise. I've pointed out to you that our current system of having individual responsibility causes financial ruin and prices to continually rise, ObamaCare or not. I even provided charts to drive that point home.
As for standard of living, you're right, I don't want to argue too much on standard of living since the definition varies, from country to country and person to person. In America, a high standard of living involves being opulent; elsewhere, it involves being healthy and financially stable. I personally favor the latter idea as it's more realistic for everyone to try and achieve. The idea in America is that wealth is right there for us to reach out and grab, but to paraphrase Wong: It's like throwing a bottle of hooch in front of a bunch of bums and telling them to fight for it. Only one bum goes home with the hooch in the end.
(except those prohibited Furthermore, the countries you are describing have less than 10-15 million people? Can you give me a good example of a country with a population that at least mirrors ours to a certain extent? And don't you dare say Canada.
CanadaNorth USA. And that's difficult to do because our population is the equivalent of several EU nations. The only thing remotely close is Russia and let's face it, Russia has never recovered from being Communist and their infrastructure for medical is inferior in every way.
Don't mistake me; I'm not saying carbon copy the system of a smaller country and expect it to work seamlessly. I'm saying emulate countries that are more successful, and adapt as needed.
Let's revise:
Me: Socialized medicine is the future. The current system is simply causing costs to skyrocket and is punishing those who can't afford it, in some cases ruining their financial futures.
You: Something vague about socialized medicine is bad. Possibly justifying the current US system, but this is unclear since you seem to be more apt to taking apart my post rather than presenting your own counter argument.
I'd like to see what you have to suggest an alternative, if this is to be a constructive debate.
