I don't ask an economics professor to teach me acting.
And I surely don't ask a rich actor about economics.

Wow, faux news. What a shock...

"people are happy with the current health care system"
lol'd

We're happy with the concept, not the results.

That's usually the problem when concepts meet reality.

So whats the intended result and how is it better than a working free health care?

Not trying to antagonize, just curious.

Uhh, what? He's not offering free health care. All he's doing is offering the same health care we have now, but forcing people to buy it.

You can still go for private health care, but it's going to have a hell of a time competing, since this bill basically lets the government breathe down their neck, and up their ass. It also lets the government disqualify any health care plan, and require you to additionally take the government plan. Any employer who does NOT offer the government plan is subject to mandatory audits, which is just a way to bully them into providing the government plan. Employers must now cover both part time and full time employees fully, AND their families.

I could go on for pages, but it's best to just read the bill. Neither the Republicans or Democrats have even done so much as that. =/

Employers must now cover both part time and full time employees fully, AND their families.

I got chills running down my spine just by reading this. Sounds horrible.

That's not the issue. The issue is that traditional health care plans are provided only for full time employees. Most employers will likely either decide to do away with part time positions, or be forced into the government plan.

At which point of this prediction the employee will not have health care?

Again, not the issue. This will just cause companies to drop employees (no health care, AND no paycheck) who are part time, since they have to be covered just the same as a full time employee. Additionally, this will lead to even more jobs being outsourced to other countries. As more people lose jobs, employers will have less money to pay employees, and need to cut back... etc...

I'm not opposed to the health care, but the way in which it is being implemented. It gives the illusion of choice, destroys competition, and punishes you for not getting health care. Hell, this is only a small portion - the rest of the bill gets even worse.

I disagree, nothing more to add. I hate to bring the eu-us difference on the table, but man it's huge...

Also, it annoys me a great deal when i hear people talk about "competition" in matters of health/education/water-food supply.

I see, so you disagree without actually having a point to disagree with. The US wouldn't be getting EU-style health care. I don't see why people seem to think this, other than listening to republicans who are yelling "SOCIALIST!" It's basically the same as we have now, but giving the government more broad control over things they shouldn't have control over, and forcing everyone to participate in it.

More health care companies going under just fuels the issues in the last two posts I have made. If they want to wipe the slate on health care clean and create an entirely new system, that's fine - but this is just competition to an existing market with absurd new governmental control.

What i meant was, there are fundamental differences, it would be silly to try to argue the specifics while there is such a huge gap. Also, http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1746075#pid1746075 , that was nicely put.

Arguing anything related to EU/US health care differences is completely unrelated, so why bring it up?

Those difference are so big that the whole discussion is "unrelated". It looks to me, and probably most europeans, completely silly to not have goverment run health care, like 1/6 of the population without it and those that have it, can't even get free mri from their insurances for their fucked up spine.

That's what I have been arguing from the start. I'm not opposed to a real government-style system, but this is not it.

You can thank the republicans for that. Obama's plan originally was for that but he's been forced to scale it so far back into this pile of shit we have on the table now.

People (especially here in the US) are just afraid of change and throw around words like socialism and marxism like they know what it means.

Uhh, no. It's been bad from the start. If the republicans had actually read the bill, they'd have plenty to argue over. Instead, they're only arguing over a few small things, like vague points that potentially might mean death panels.

You are another victim of not reading the bill.

and just how do you know that i have read the bill or not? are you psychic?

because you are commenting on it in ways that are clearly out of line with the original bill, and modifications to the bill. I know because I did read it.

so you just never really read my posts? I've been talking about obama's original plans for healthcare; a universal single payer system. Having realized that at least half the country would never be onboard with it we ended up with HR3200.

With that said, what have i commentated about HR3200 that somehow indicates a lack of knowledge about the bill. I called it a piece of shit, which it is and everyone knows it.

i think something like 2/3 the population want single payer, but the health insurance industry won't let that happen.

No, that gives the government too much control... I mean what's next? Letting the government run an institution where they train young men and women to use weapons, then arm them with said weapons, and promote them blindly following orders?

I see what u did there.

plussing you has become pointless

the problem is, HMO's. PAY FOR HEALTHCARE GET "SORRY THATS NOT COVERED" FUCK YOU MY HEALTH ISN'T FOR SALE.

Hehe, didnt mean compared to whatever Obama is doing, but rather compared to a working socialist system. But what you wrote was enlightening too ;)

Yeah, I'm not opposed to a proper health care system, just the one being offered. =P

Nice oxymoron that 'working socialist system' :)))))))))))))

So the employers are forced to provide for the health care making it still hard for the unemployed?

Seems like unnecesary control over employers. Either leave it as it is now or make a full government based health care forced to individuals by paying taxes.

Did I get this right?

Employers will be required to provide health care for all employees (instead of just full time as it is now), and you as a person will be required to have some form of health care - employed or not. If you do not take a health care plan, you will be taxed. If you have a child, you have no choice.

As an employer, you must use either the government plan, or a health care plan that is government approved. If you do not use the government plan, your company is subject to audits.

"All he's doing is offering the same health care we have now, but forcing people to buy it."

...no he's not. If your plan is to strawman the f*ck out of his proposal at least try coming up with a more credible lie.

READ the bill. Read it.

as you can see from his reply, it's basically the European system.


Except some lolamaricans see it as socialism :P

the amount of stupidity in the US public debates is incredible

and they have the arrogance to pretend they're the best country in the world.. fucking LOL

Yeah, It when people referre themselves as the "greatest country in the world" too.
People who do that should be publicly humiliated in a severe fashion.

MURICA

Why are they talking to a fucking actor of all people. Or does he have merits that I'm unaware of? Such as actually knowledge about politics n stuff.

ya he does. he is rich n white n a celebrity = knowledgeable and should be asked his ideas because he is successful. Yeah, thats how america works.

He was a politician in Enemy of the State, that's gotta count for something.

While republicans are just as stupid as democrats, his ignorant opposition to the the health care bill is productive. He's fighting on the right side, but for the wrong reasons.

..and of course you have the right reasons to opose it. why am i not surprised?

He was awesome in Runaway Train.


DBL click it, its all there in continious parts!

Promise, if you've never seen this film before you'll enjoy.

great movie.. thanks for pointing it out

I've got Jon Voight's car baby, see ya.

haha john voight omg owned

John Voight*

America is trying too hard to hide the image projected by idiots like this, it's not going to happen, all America really has to do is wait 50 years or so for them all to die because the main problem is old dumb retards having too much of a voice. Fuck off and die quietly, none of the stuff you care about will matter to you soon.

Trust me, I know just as many retarded young people who will aspire to be even more retarded than the old fuckers currently in power. As long as the fucking idiots in this country take anything these type of people say, and think that politicians will actually make a difference then we are fucked and will continue in a downward spiral. The only thing that can save us is a violent revolution, bitches.

Nah there's really less young people than it seems, plus a lot of them just agree with something out of the ordinary to try and seem like they know what they're talking about.

"Well actually, I think Bush was a GOOD president!"

Retarded shit like that.

Haha, contrarian chic ^^

Obama sucks. He was supposed to be the guy who is gonna say FUCK YOU, I AM THE PRESIDENT! to all the idiots and get stuff through because it was good for the people. Instead, he is a soft guy trying to compromise with the retards and appease the congrescritters and lobbyists. Cunts stole America from you people and you did not even notice.

lol!

obama was planned by the republicans. He is the seed they used. Now they have all the minority votes.

I've only recently seen the campaign and how americans were crying when Obama won. I came.

Obama can't just do whatever he wants, he still has to get votes from the other branches of the system. As it stands, his own party isn't standing behind him for this.

just typical antidemocratic(by this i mean anti-democracy, not anti-democratic party) propaganda. healthcare should be a human right. pardon the fallacy here, but anyone with a brain should be able to see that.


"what they are trying to do is create an america unlike the america that has existed for centuries.."

yea, in that old america the only people with any say were white males who owned land and slaves. fuck that america.

the level of retardization in your country must never been so big
the more time goes the more you become all africans, and we all know africans are always at the peak of advanced human civilisations, technology research/development included
but hey, at least they are good with those buckets, soon you too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTsDD_yYgs

idkwtfu talk about jonesy

he thinks you're stupid cause you black

did not say anything about Lo, he might be the exception from the rule if he is black, if he feel otherwise it is his problem
you can't convince me niggers communities first preocupation is arts, "yo nigga, watch my 10,000 dollars watch who's the man now, heh, who's the man" -this is their mentality

I think speaking about intelligence was an arguable good argument, it should be more appropriate to name this the difference between communities who ask for common solutions: keep one or another integrity by discriminating the other, or make an omogenous solution which in fact is killing both communities integrity, it is like trying to achieve the consensus between one tall man and one short man, by chopping the legs of the first and using procust bed on the other, in the end both will come disfigured, the solution is keep them apart or together, depending on their relations and possibility of influence/infection but never try to make them equal
I hope you like my jonesysation attempt

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

i think he refers to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

sry I didn't want you to short circuit again. damn

why should healthcare be a human right? Anything about survival of the fittest would crush that argument. We are all trying to pass our own genes on why should we help someone else?

If you want healthcare pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you can't survive and live life on this erf. so fuck off.

social darwinism is crushed by concept of mutual aid. humans didnt evolve by fucking each other over. we survived through mutual aid.

wrong and right. we helped each other in small tribes. Whe didnt help other tribes or 300 million fucking people.

does that somehow support social darwinism?

you're so stupid it hurts to read your posts

What's so stupid about what he said?

with his logic no tax should be payed, every man for himself.

we should all live in small tribes

While I don't agree with that either, in a way we really are 'killing' darwin by passing on bad genes. It would suck for some (to let the weak die) but not to the human species as a whole. Obviously I think we have evolved past the 'survival of the fittest' point but I don't think it's such a stupid idea to talk about.

i think we're going slightly off topic..

You can only reach your genetic limit at the very top end of any discipline, be it understanding nature or winning/attempting to win the 100 metre sprints. So for the 99% of ppl who aren't pushing themselves fully, what difference does it make if u have "bad" genes? You don't need to be innately gifted to be a fkn lawyer or banker. Environmental factors are a bigger deal for equipping a person with the tools to take on most professions

The horrific potential of those kinds of ideas when executed in reality massively outweighs the minor benefits of people in general not having as bad eye sight etc.

that is still heavily debated.

Fopr example there are indications that Neanderthals were in fact the better humans, but were wiped out buy another, more evil, race. Called Homo Sapiens.

I think in a nutshell, the difference is that when you are up against another group (or race for that matter) people inside your own group will feel safe, while if you do bad stuff inside your group people will punish you.

As a result we should form the populace of the world as one huge group, basically what the UN was meant to do.

that is still heavily debated.

only by proponents of unregulated captitalism.

I think in a nutshell, the difference is that when you are up against another group (or race for that matter) people inside your own group will feel safe, while if you do bad stuff inside your group people will punish you.

that's essentially how ethnocentrism works.

As a result we should form the populace of the world as one huge group, basically what the UN was meant to do.

i'd agree if we were talking about unifying humanity under an egalitarian society, but i doubt we are.

The idea that ppl helped each other for survival purposes is debatable? I thought it a safe comment. BTW there are Neanderthal genes in us, so in a manner of speaking, they never died out.

"As a result we should form the populace of the world as one huge group"
what does that mean?

no that is not debatable.

The part where it's only mutual aid instead of killing unknown tribes and other "bad" behaiour is debatable.
I mean look at the history of our race. We do have a tendency to try and kill each other, or at least take advantage of weaker people.

right, but afaik nobody suggested that mutual aid and killing members of different tribes were mutually exclusive actions. mutual aid is also far more likely to ensure survival than killing. Forgive me for stating the obvious

well, that is how I interpeted lo's statement.

And I'm not sure I agree with what you that. I would be great if it were that way.

But for example in a bad winter where two tribes only have enough food for a third of their members to survive. Sure they could try to work out an agreement who has to die and who doesn't.
But I believe there is enough aggression in humans to say that the ones who will survive will be the ones who killed the other tribe.

Sure that is an extreme example, nevertheless something like this bound to have happened.

why would any1 agree to be without food? why wouldn't they go foraging for food or die trying? Why couldn't the tribe be fair if such a scenario occurred? e.g. tribe is short of food, tribe member x spent a fraction of the time foraging/hunting and can therefore go without. Exclude them from the group, no need to fkn kill them. Nature will do it if they're unable to fend for themselves once excluded

I am talking about the people from the other group.

And life in winter isn't like an rpg where you a stead tournout of food when going hunting. I mean even today people die of starvation, and I don't think they are too dumb to hunt...

"And life in winter isn't like an rpg where you a stead tournout of food when going hunting" - but that's not what i implied. I asked why it is that they shouldn't forage or die in the attempt. nice strawman

ok then.

If the tribe has less food than they need they will obviously need to feed their hunters because if those are starved and weak there is no way they can go hunting. But if they feed them enough there will not be enough for the children and women so those might die of starvation. Which could then result in those social genes or traditions or whatever it is being wiped from the genepool.

But if you attack another group, kill them in their sleep and get their stored food you are almost certain to survive the winter. That tradition or those agressive genes get passed on as a sucessful strategy.

If killing was a genetic trait (rather than just the result of the survival instinct + desperation (in your scenario) then surely it would disappear the more successful we became

why? After all there sayings like: business is war and love is war.


Also, just out a halt-related curiosity: Why do you think all of us here prefer games like quake or starcraft to the sims and egg hunt?

Competition is important (violent or otherwise) not straight up killing. Last I checked a UK game sales chart, the Sims (with all it's various iterations) just dominated the chart

As a result we should form the populace of the world as one huge group, basically what the UN was meant to do.

If one country becomes fucked up and totalitarian at least you can hope to escape. What do you do when the entire world is one big superstate?

the same that rats do when baked against a wall ;)

u haven't thought it through

of course not, this is utter optimism and idealism speaking :D

I thought that was obvious :/

I guess the US wouldn't make it very far in survival of the fittest. Your pride (amongst other things) would kill you.

But we have guns so we could pwn most of europe pretty easily.

The rest of the world has weapons too :(

We have more weapons than the rest of the world combined most likely. (maybe not counting china or russia)

i lold

No, it's most certainly just a party war, and both sides are equally wrong. America isn't a democracy anyway, it's a republic.

negative.

1 party state

state capitalist economy

plutocratic polyarchic government

No.

we have 1 party, which is the business party. the democratic and republican "parties" are just 2 factions of the business party.

if usa were a republic, then elections, local or federal, wouldn't be determined by whoever produces the best propaganda campaign.

also, if it were a republic, then americans would have the choice in who the nominees are for elections, not the republican and democratic bureaucracies.

You do have a choice in elections outside of the two parties, but independent/libertarian candidates get no media attention. We can't sustain a republic if the people don't bother to stand up or educate themselves.

There is no way we can keep this up for much longer without it starting another revolution. It's probably going to get pretty ugly.

you're making the false assumption that it is a republic.

No, it's always been a republic. Not kinda, not maybe, always.

it was never founded as one. the founders intended it to be a plutocracy.

Absolute crazy talk.

electoral college.

I would say covert plutocracy is more fitting. The two party system is just a facade to keep the sheep fighting about nonsense.

the system is meant to keep the "meddlesome outsiders" from participating in the affairs of the wealthy.

lol @ this old fuck showing up with "we're witnessing a slow and steady takeover of our true freedoms" like 8 years after the patriot act.

Edit: LAMO @ the god part followed by
[audience] BOOOO!

Anyone ever notice the huge contradiction among US right-wingers? They are all about biblical values and they mention Jesus and God whenever they get the chance, but in reality they couldn't care less about the poor and helpless. If you get sick, tough shit, you die. Pretty far from the Jesus-ideology they claim to adhere to, where you're supposed to be compassionate and help others.
Whats even more funny is that they don't want this "survival of the fittest" ideology taught in school. Screw Darwin, yay capitalism.

The lies being spread in this health care debate on account of the right-wingers is just disgusting. I can't believe they're not being called on it more.

well people with social security can live the american dream, the others can die, fuck them.


gotta love ton of those american hospital-based tv shows where doctors are loving, great and #care

also the devout "christians" are very militaristic

in fact what they call christianity over there (mainly the evangelical branch) is an abomination on the same level with fundamentalist islam.

the neocons/rednecks hate jews, but at highlevel they're dickriding them.. so much hipocrisy and contradictions, it's mind boggling.

George Carlin explained it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rlqjxst6xU

That's not a contradiction at all, because by far not all churches share these values. A lot of what constitutes this quaint landscape of christian churches/sects in america today originates from puritans and calvinists and the like (got persecuted in europe, so there was a massive influx of them to the usa). They always had somewhat social darwinistic tendencies due to their predeterministic views.

jon voight should stop making a fool out of himself and go force his daughter to start eating.

Fuck Off. I enjoy his daughter in the totally objectified manner by which I view her, next.

the guys who prefer SwS girls are usually 5 foot tall, 100lbs, and don't feel man enough.

Yep i've got a true feeling real healthcare reform will not pass in this country. The debate has been completely taken over by crazies who denounce socialized healthcare while saying leave my medicare alone and other idiocy like that.

How this country has survived almost 300 years just baffles me really.

You're defending the bill by attacking the opponents, instead of trying to support any of the things in the bill itself. This is exactly what both Republicans AND Democrats are doing. Neither side is actually urging you to look at the bill, they just argue that the other side is un-American and/or crazy.

Don't take my word for it - I urge you read the entire thing. If 1000+ pages is too much for you (as it seems to be for the people who actually have to vote on it), then here's a few pages for you to take note of: 16, 22, 29, 30, 42, 50, 58, 59, 65, 72, 84, 91, 95, 102, 124, 126, 127, 145, 167, 170, 195, 203, 239, 241, 253, 265, the list goes on...

The only thing baffling is that this shit goes on in plain sight, and the public STILL doesn't see it.

i loled even more :DDDD

http://www.videosift.com/video/Barney-Frank-C...-To-Hitler

Quite funny in a way but also so very sad. As he says, what a vaile product of the first amendment. It is ridiculous how these mongoloids trivialize the Nazi regime.

i like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU

Actors need to stick to acting. For some reason they think people care about their opinions.

dumb common folk care. that's the sad part

God bless ESR I love these threads, they always deliver, even though 400+ posts wouldnt have hurt.

The social darwinism people are an embarassment to themselves btw, and Becks blood thirsty-ness is probably a german trait? ;)

That Scarlett guy makes no sense what so ever as always, but I think I saw something about black peoples mentality towards one thing or another. Whatever it was Im sure he´s right that its a genetic thing and not a product of society.

Couldnt watch the actual video since youtube doesnt work at work but I guess thats hardly relevant for the thread.

Also, its good to see Vedic back in action.