Obamacare
Pay money or pay money unless on welfare, then keep on collecting
Help people or help people, unless being helped, then keep on living
Not really...
Quote from: ShadowBarbarian on May 19, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
*Affordable Healthcare Act
**Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act or "An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act"
Quote from: Taysby on May 19, 2014, 10:10:28 PM
Forcibly takes hard earned money from people who worked for it.
I'm not opposed to helping people, I'm just opposed to forced helping and government waste and problems.
Actually, Obamacare is going to save people money by turning the American public into one large consumer, turning the healthcare system around by forcing the healthcare firms to be price takers (as they should be in a competitive capitalist system). This is simple economics, there are times where the invisible hand of the market isn't able to achieve efficiency and during those times, the government needs to step in to manipulate the market so that we have a more efficient outcome, especially when considering externalities which the free market isn't able to take into consideration. Yes there is a deadweight loss, but the outcome is the socially optimal and it is well worth the deadweight loss. TL;DR: everyone who is crying about this creating waste or ruining the capitalist system is completely wrong and should pick up an economics textbook. It's sad when the socialist has to correct you guys on your own system....
Quote from: ShadowBarbarian on May 19, 2014, 10:32:42 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: ShadowBarbarian on May 19, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
*Affordable Healthcare Act
**Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act or "An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act"
...It was still more accurate than ObamaCare.
Very true
Quote from: Taysby on May 19, 2014, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 10:30:43 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 19, 2014, 10:10:28 PM
Forcibly takes hard earned money from people who worked for it.
I'm not opposed to helping people, I'm just opposed to forced helping and government waste and problems.
Actually, Obamacare is going to save people money by turning the American public into one large consumer, turning the healthcare system around by forcing the healthcare firms to be price takers (as they should be in a competitive capitalist system). This is simple economics, there are times where the invisible hand of the market isn't able to achieve efficiency and during those times, the government needs to step in to manipulate the market so that we have a more efficient outcome, especially when considering externalities which the free market isn't able to take into consideration. Yes there is a deadweight loss, but the outcome is the socially optimal and it is well worth the deadweight loss. TL;DR: everyone who is crying about this creating waste or ruining the capitalist system is completely wrong and should pick up an economics textbook. It's sad when the socialist has to correct you guys on your own system....
And the government never screws up and does things it never inted to happen...
Keep using vague excuses....I am sure that between the thousands of people who have taken part in the drafting, and implementation of the law, the grand majority of the kinks have been worked out. But yeah, keep telling yourself that the government is evil and that you are perfect...
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
The article is just a little long...
I read about a third of it. Very intriguing, and even more didactic. I'll probably finish it when I'm less tired.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
The article is just a little long...
Could have posted a link but people probably wouldn't have clicked it
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 12:37:34 AM
You expect me to read that?
For example, the post office. There's lots of people "working the links out" yet the post office always relies on taxes to sustain it. The government screws up on things. Piotr, your views?
This is blantently false. The post office is 100% funded from postage revenue. Let me repeat 100% from their own revenue.....not $1....not $.01.......not anything from state, federal, or any other form of tax money.
The conservative maniacs hate the success of this blue collar entity and created legislation that has been crippling it for years. In a nut shell the legislation put forth in 2006....thanks Bush.....requires the post office to pre-fund health benefits for the next 75 years. So what that means is the post office is being required to pay health benefits now for future employees that are not even born yet.......
No other public or private entity has ever been required to do such a crazy thing. This is government attacking government to give all services to private firms......hands down.
I'm against government forcing me to buy a product I don't want nor need.
Do what?
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 07:48:02 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
The article is just a little long...
Could have posted a link but people probably wouldn't have clicked it
No, you would have to have a subscription to Time in order to read the article, otherwise I would have put the link
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2014, 03:50:50 PM
I'm against government forcing me to buy a product I don't want nor need.
To be fair, you don't have to buy anything. No one is forcing you to stay within the country. Also, you have the option to simply pay the fine.
Also: see the above post, I only posted the article here, because you would need a Time Subscription to access it through a link. I am sorry, next time I will put such things in a Google Doc and link that to here.
The fine is not much for the first few years of this program, but eventually becomes monstrous.
Still forcing people pay for things, whether or not they want them.
The idea of getting fined X % of your income and then not getting eligible for any coverage is kinda absurd too...
I just don't understand why it always has to come on the back of the people always.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 05:08:02 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 07:48:02 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
The article is just a little long...
Could have posted a link but people probably wouldn't have clicked it
No, you would have to have a subscription to Time in order to read the article, otherwise I would have put the link
Ok thank you then.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 07:10:27 PM
As for the post office, I'll do some research to find links.
Here's a .gov site
http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/postal-reform-myths-vs-facts
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 07:10:27 PM
And since when has healthcare become a need? Up until 19whenever it was, there was no such thing as health insurance. People survived without it. And forcing me to pay for someone who chose to smoke and then receive healthcare for it is stupid.
As for the post office, I'll do some research to find links.
It is necessary because health insurance allows people to receive healthcare which in turn allows Americans to survive longer and happier lives. Also, we would be paying for these people to receive health insurance anyways (through Medicare and the taxpayers pay for anyone who receives emergency healthcare services and can't pay for them), but this system allows the entire American public to act as a union of sorts, and use collective bargaining against the healthcare industry. If you had read the article, you would understand this concept. And to you "19whatever it was" remark I present this:
(http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/infant-mortality.jpg)
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
Sometimes a few people have to sacrifice their wants to the majority, or for the good of the majority. Using your reasoning, I should be paid all of the money I put into taxes during our excursions into the Middle East. I don't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet I still pay for the military. You can't always get want you want.
Edit: I will take mercy on you all, and post this paragraph from the Wikipedia page for the act: "The ACA was enacted with the goals of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. It introduced a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—meant to increase coverage and affordability.[6][7] The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.[8] Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the ACA will lower both future deficits[9] and Medicare spending.[10]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Your right, it is wrong for them to use your taxes in ways you don't want the money spent. Any form if taxing is wrong, if I wanna help or take advantage of a service I will pay for it. If not then I won't, and it's wrong to force me.
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
But you still do. Random person doesn't have insurance. He cuts himself. No big deal. Two weeks later it's infected and really messing with him. The infection gets worse he goes to the emergency room. It looks like it could be life threatening so they have to take him. The emergency room fixes him up and sends him a bill. He ignores it knowing there is not much that can be done to him. You can really get anything from someone who has nothing. So now they waste more time and money with collections and the such.
So now something that could have been fixed with an inexpensive doctor visit now is in collections and way more expensive since it was an emergency room visit.
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits.
So how do you fix this. Well we can't make walmart or mcdonalds give their employees insurance since that will cut into their profits. So they decided to put that on the individual.
So basically you still pay for people who do not have insurance or the hospital will close.
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 08:12:57 PM
Your right, it is wrong for them to use your taxes in ways you don't want the money spent. Any form if taxing is wrong, if I wanna help or take advantage of a service I will pay for it. If not then I won't, and it's wrong to force me.
But how else would we maintain our lives? Think of all of the roads, schools, air traffic controllers, public works programs (such as dams) and of course, the police, firefighters and other emergency crews that would not get enough funding. Also, as even the most conservative economist would tell you, the government is sometimes needed to interfere in the market, so as to achieve the socially optimal output. Are there better ways to run things? Is there some governmental waste? Do they sometimes make the wrong decision? In order: Maybe, Yes and yes. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't found and/or been able to implement a better system, so we have to put up with the system that we have. In the end, the free market is NOT able to achieve everything that we need to get done, nor can it create and uphold laws, so the government is needed and taxes are needed to keep the government going.
To be a good person? Do you not care about infants? I may be a little biased because my sister died in a car crash when I was little... But still, wouldn't not paying other peoples healthcare a little if they can't pay it themselves be akin to setting a homeless guys cardboard box on fire?
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:24:26 PM
Ok, you got me with the picture. But you haven't yet answered why I should have to pay for others.
Taysby, you're going to get me in trouble....the simple answer is that we are a community and we are beings with powers and abilities far more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom, therefore some responsibility falls on us to be humane and moral living things. Our morality is what has allowed us to become the great societies we are today, to develop our ideas and understandings of the world and to evolve past being mere tribal apes with thumbs. The long answer is Marxist, and I will refrain from that, in respect for Piotr.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:33:45 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
But you still do. Random person doesn't have insurance. He cuts himself. No big deal. Two weeks later it's infected and really messing with him. The infection gets worse he goes to the emergency room. It looks like it could be life threatening so they have to take him. The emergency room fixes him up and sends him a bill. He ignores it knowing there is not much that can be done to him. You can really get anything from someone who has nothing. So now they waste more time and money with collections and the such.
So now something that could have been fixed with an inexpensive doctor visit now is in collections and way more expensive since it was an emergency room visit.
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits.
So how do you fix this. Well we can't make walmart or mcdonalds give their employees insurance since that will cut into their profits. So they decided to put that on the individual.
So basically you still pay for people who do not have insurance or the hospital will close.
So you fix that problem by not making hospitals take people like that. Tuh duh.
Hospitals have to take people with life threatening problems. And guess what if they didn't things like the movie john q would happen.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:33:45 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
But you still do. Random person doesn't have insurance. He cuts himself. No big deal. Two weeks later it's infected and really messing with him. The infection gets worse he goes to the emergency room. It looks like it could be life threatening so they have to take him. The emergency room fixes him up and sends him a bill. He ignores it knowing there is not much that can be done to him. You can really get anything from someone who has nothing. So now they waste more time and money with collections and the such.
So now something that could have been fixed with an inexpensive doctor visit now is in collections and way more expensive since it was an emergency room visit.
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits.
So how do you fix this. Well we can't make walmart or mcdonalds give their employees insurance since that will cut into their profits. So they decided to put that on the individual.
So basically you still pay for people who do not have insurance or the hospital will close.
So you fix that problem by not making hospitals take people like that. Tuh duh.
Are you just trolling us? I quote, "
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits." Your "solution" is what we have already, but we are forced to pay for their healthcare anyways (if you would have read, it might make sense), although indirectly. Please, go get a basic understanding of economics and the current state of our nation's healthcare system before you argue any further. At least others are coming up with legitimate arguments and ethical conundrums, you are just asking questions when the answer was already given.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: The FullMetal Alchemist on May 20, 2014, 08:26:25 PM
To be a good person? Do you not care about infants? I may be a little biased because my sister died in a car crash when I was little... But still, wouldn't not paying other peoples healthcare a little if they can't pay it themselves be akin to setting a homeless guys cardboard box on fire?
I care about people. The solution I propose is make it optional instead of forcing it upon people through the use of charities and such. I for one, would donate some money to programs like that to help underprivileged people who can't afford it and are making good lifestyle choices assuming the government wasn't forcing me to pay for services like that already.
THIS WOULDN'T WORK. If you honestly think we could get anywhere close to the same amount of money through donations, you are joking yourself. Also, if you are willing to donate the money anyways, why are you complaining that they are taking the money?!? You are being an asinine prick. Millions (47 million, last I saw) (source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/) of people live in poverty, they aren't there solely because they aren't making good lifestyle choices. I live in a household that is under the poverty line and one of my parents has a Masters degree in Childhood Education and the other is a manager at Home Depot. Get that, BOTH are working, they don't drink, or smoke, or make any other "bad lifestyle choices". My mother has MS and here medical bills are over $12,000 a month, thankfully programs like this are able to pay for them. Did she make bad decisions? Is it her fault she has an incurable disease? The real problem here is that there are too many heartless people who have a poor grasp on reality and like to bask in the bull$hit idea that they are better than the lower classes. So go on, keep telling me about how my college educated parents who are working as hard as they can to make ends meat are a bunch of thieves, but the truth is, we wallow in poverty because of the greed of the upper class and chance.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:33:45 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
But you still do. Random person doesn't have insurance. He cuts himself. No big deal. Two weeks later it's infected and really messing with him. The infection gets worse he goes to the emergency room. It looks like it could be life threatening so they have to take him. The emergency room fixes him up and sends him a bill. He ignores it knowing there is not much that can be done to him. You can really get anything from someone who has nothing. So now they waste more time and money with collections and the such.
So now something that could have been fixed with an inexpensive doctor visit now is in collections and way more expensive since it was an emergency room visit.
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits.
So how do you fix this. Well we can't make walmart or mcdonalds give their employees insurance since that will cut into their profits. So they decided to put that on the individual.
So basically you still pay for people who do not have insurance or the hospital will close.
So you fix that problem by not making hospitals take people like that. Tuh duh.
Hospitals have to take people with life threatening problems. And guess what if they didn't things like the movie john q would happen.
Using my solution, the people who really need it and desere it would have insurance already and thus they would get accepted.
Who decides if they "deserve it." You don't have the right to make life and death decisions for people whom you don't know. Also, if you have visited reality lately, you would know that there is a high unemployment rate. Moxy and hard work can't make you a millionaire in America anymore. Who says that the a$$hole born to a pampered life deserves to life more than the hard working man who got laid off and can't find a job? You obviously have no grasp on reality.
There is only one problem I have on this topic. I have seen it a ton. "Why do I get stuck with the bill?" Just think, a country of 300 million people not all, but most can pay taxes and this bill of one man/woman say is $150000 split that up into, I don't know, maybe 50 million people. Within these 50 million people you have lower class to upper class all paying a certain percent. In my utopia I would have the people who make more money pay a higher percent. But since there is a total of 50 million people paying for this bill it only turns out everyone is paying less than a penny for this man/woman. And then I guess I would have to factor in thousands of people getting medical care; some that are able to pay and some that aren't. But when I think anout this the money seems almost insignificant to the life a surgeon/doctor/nurse/whoever just saved. MY OPINION is that the Affordable Care Act will be a good thing, but I guess people think it is to socialistic for America to help others.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 08:54:59 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:33:45 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Infektor on May 20, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
The point is the gov shouldn't force us to pay for a service if we don't want it.
But you still do. Random person doesn't have insurance. He cuts himself. No big deal. Two weeks later it's infected and really messing with him. The infection gets worse he goes to the emergency room. It looks like it could be life threatening so they have to take him. The emergency room fixes him up and sends him a bill. He ignores it knowing there is not much that can be done to him. You can really get anything from someone who has nothing. So now they waste more time and money with collections and the such.
So now something that could have been fixed with an inexpensive doctor visit now is in collections and way more expensive since it was an emergency room visit.
Now the hospital has to take into account of a certain % of people not paying their bill. So they charge more for each other persons visit to the hospital to your insurance. Then your insurance decides to pass that cost on to you and they even add a little more for their profits.
So how do you fix this. Well we can't make walmart or mcdonalds give their employees insurance since that will cut into their profits. So they decided to put that on the individual.
So basically you still pay for people who do not have insurance or the hospital will close.
So you fix that problem by not making hospitals take people like that. Tuh duh.
Hospitals have to take people with life threatening problems. And guess what if they didn't things like the movie john q would happen.
Using my solution, the people who really need it and desere it would have insurance already and thus they would get accepted.
Who decides if they "deserve it." You don't have the right to make life and death decisions for people whom you don't know. Also, if you have visited reality lately, you would know that there is a high unemployment rate. Moxy and hard work can't make you a millionaire in America anymore. Who says that the a$$hole born to a pampered life deserves to life more than the hard working man who got laid off and can't find a job? You obviously have no grasp on reality.
People who deserve it are people who didn't purposefully harm their health, such as smokers.
Due to multiple government taxes and requirements for work benefits like health insurance, people can't hire as many people as they would like to.
Refer that hard working man to me. I have a way for him to make some good money. If they talk to enough people they will end up finding work.
Lol selling your Ponzi scheme I mean karat bars.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 08:58:19 PM
1. I would be will it to donate, because I could donate it to the group that does things the way I approve of. The government forcibly takes it and gives it out in ways that I disagree with (see above argument about smoking)
2. How many people are in your family?
3. So should we just switch to a communistic society so everyone is equal and has the same things everyone else has?
1) Then we are getting into the territory of corruption. Millionaire and billionaires would run everything because their money is bigger and louder than everyone else's. Also, look at yourself. You claim you would donate, but you complain when you pay taxes. The money starts and ends in the same place, what's the difference? (and you can't use waste as a response, studies have shown that charities are worse than our government with similar waste, with as little as 1% making it to the cause with some major charities)
2) In my household are my two parents, me and my brother, and three foster children (we receive money to support them so its not like we are just digging ourselves in a deeper hole, we are basically just giving them a family, a roof and some attention).
3) In my honest opinion, yes. I believe that we should live in a social democracy where everyone is treated equally and receives the same opportunities. (and before you use the USSR or the Nazi regime as an example, those were facist governments, and a social democracy is a socialist system run by a democratic government) Although, I will refrain from speaking more on the subject, in respect for Piotr.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:01:33 PM
People who deserve it are people who didn't purposefully harm their health, such as smokers.
Due to multiple government taxes and requirements for work benefits like health insurance, people can't hire as many people as they would like to.
Refer that hard working man to me. I have a way for him to make some good money. If they talk to enough people they will end up finding work.
I have not been pampered and given all sorts of free stuff from my parents. My parents make me work for all my stuff. My dad makes $100000+ a year and he isn't going to pay very much at all for college.
Nor do I think that everyone can work into a million dollars. They can work into a really decent living and maby more if they have a good idea.
I too agree tobacco should be illegal, but sadly many on your side of .politics. think that would be government overreach and a violation of their rights.
Many Americans work solely for the purpose of obtaining medical care through their employers, many experts believe that this law will allow those workers to step down into part time positions, freeing up jobs for people who need full time work (such as parents).
Sadly, this isn't true. Walmart has a lower acceptance rate than Harvard now adays....
Neither have I been pampered and I work hard to be a straight A student in advanced classes, while participating in sports, maintaining a job, participating in extracurricular activities, and participating in nationally acclaimed music groups. My parents will pay
none of my college fees, I am alone, so don't talk to me about paying for college.
Your last line troubles me. The reason it troubles me, is because it is true. What happened to the American dream? This is just more evidence of the disgusting inequality that exists in America. The bourgeois have closed the door on the proletariat. How is that fair? Where does that fit into our human ideology?
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:15:24 PM
Some charities waste. I would not donate to those ones. The difference is I get to chose how much I donate, to who it goes to, etc, as opposed from it forcibly being taken from me to be spent how to government thinks is the best.
Gtg, I'll be back in ~30 min. Don't go on without me plz.
All charities waste. Whenever you see a commercial for a charity or organization, that is money that could have gone to the cause. (This is an example of monopolistic competition and is EXTREMELY unhealthy to the capitalist system.) Also, for the fifth? time, you don't have to live here. In addition, your "how the government thinks is the best" comment is idiotic. Who decides who runs the government? You do! If you don't like how they are running it, don't vote for them. Now, if you want to get into the, "but I don't choose, because of others, and my money should be spent the way I want it spent" argument, you are getting into the billionaires run the government territory, there is a reason we decide by popular election, not whomever throws the most money at it (although sadly, it is becoming that...).
I will wait
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:12:03 PM
*lawers, not lasers. :P
But I like lasers.
Lawyers found O.J. Innocent for murder but yet guilty in a civil trial. I don't trust them. But this is a whole other topic.
Quote from: Rass on May 20, 2014, 09:38:04 PMBut this is a whole other topic.
Lol, guess what I want to be when I grow up....If you want to start the topic, I'll be glad to join in on the discussion.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:56:45 PM
4) and you can succeed by getting straight as like you have been and getting a full ride to a community college with a part time job to pay for text books. Good for you.
This hits to the core of the problem though. I can get a community college education, get a job paying $30,000 (because pretty much any university is favored over CC) and the cycle continues. I barely get by and my children get a free ride into CC and so on. The only way to move up in the world is to put myself into crippling debt or to accept my place. That isn't right.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 09:24:47 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:15:24 PM
Some charities waste. I would not donate to those ones. The difference is I get to chose how much I donate, to who it goes to, etc, as opposed from it forcibly being taken from me to be spent how to government thinks is the best.
Gtg, I'll be back in ~30 min. Don't go on without me plz.
All charities waste. Whenever you see a commercial for a charity or organization, that is money that could have gone to the cause. (This is an example of monopolistic competition and is EXTREMELY unhealthy to the capitalist system.) Also, for the fifth? time, you don't have to live here. In addition, your "how the government thinks is the best" comment is idiotic. Who decides who runs the government? You do! If you don't like how they are running it, don't vote for them. Now, if you want to get into the, "but I don't choose, because of others, and my money should be spent the way I want it spent" argument, you are getting into the billionaires run the government territory, there is a reason we decide by popular election, not whomever throws the most money at it (although sadly, it is becoming that...).
I will wait
That advertising gets more money for the program. It's like a business. I'd be fine with that "waste"
That takes us back to, the government is already outrageously out stepping its boundaries.
Most of how legislation is operated, is through the interpretation of unelected government officials, so even if I get my desired candidate into office, there are still ways for it to get screwed up.
1) That isn't how businesses are supposed to work, again, get educated on the economy and come back to me.
2)No it isn't. Allowing the citizens to get a say, without literally millions of dollars flooding the system and corrupting it.
3) Our elected officials vote on these laws, the people have a say.
To your, "And I don't mean to be offensive or sarcastic here. It sounds like a) your dad over educated himself so they can't afford to pay him what he's worth in a sector that already pays little to nothing and b) your mom is getting hosed in her wage. As a gm so she should be making more."
Why is over-educating himself by getting an associate's degree in business? You are just assuming he made a bad choice because I didn't even tell you what degree he got. My mom isn't a GM, she has a Master's degree in Childhood Education and can't find a job except for substituting, which pays next to nothing.
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 10:02:48 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 10:01:15 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 09:56:45 PM
4) and you can succeed by getting straight as like you have been and getting a full ride to a community college with a part time job to pay for text books. Good for you.
This hits to the core of the problem though. I can get a community college education, get a job paying $30,000 (because pretty much any university is favored over CC) and the cycle continues. I barely get by and my children get a free ride into CC and so on. The only way to move up in the world is to put myself into crippling debt or to accept my place. That isn't right.
Ummm... No. My brother in law got a CS degree from Dixie state college. He's now making ~$60,000 a year just 4 years into his career.
Again, not everyone is so fortunate. Your family being luck doesn't give you the right to look down on others.
I am done with this argument. There is no reason to argue with a man who doesn't see reality. You are just a condescending jerk, and I for one can't wait until you are out in the real world and your daddy isn't protecting you anymore. I implored you to use logic and have a basic sense of human decency, but apparently that isn't enough. Your misguided ideologies might grant you some kind of sense of superiority, but in reality you no better than anyone else. Maybe we can have this argument again when you have experienced life, understand economics and grow a conscience, but for now, I can't stand to hear anything else you say.
Well, hi guys. Just a regular comment passing through. Just came to ask how everyone's day was. :P
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 20, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
Well, hi guys. Just a regular comment passing through. Just came to ask how everyone's day was. :P
Fine, how was yours?
Pretty decent
Everyone healthy?
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2014, 03:50:50 PM
I'm against government forcing me to buy a product I don't want nor need.
To be fair, you don't have to buy anything. No one is forcing you to stay within the country. Also, you have the option to simply pay the fine.
Also: see the above post, I only posted the article here, because you would need a Time Subscription to access it through a link. I am sorry, next time I will put such things in a Google Doc and link that to here.
You are breaking the copyrights laws of your own country, moron.
EDIT: I don't want TheTimes' lawyers sending me cease and desist letters just because you are too dumb to understand how reality works.
EDIT2: Everything you do affects others, everything has a cost associated with it. I had to spend 10 minutes of my time cleaning your mess. As my retribution I called you names, as your restitution pay 10 minutes* worth of my time to my PayPal account to erase your guilt.
EDIT3: You have Removed all your posts which originally contained copyrighted material, from pages 1 and 2 of this thread.
* all my 2014 invoices so far have GBP50 per hour of my time on them.
Quote from: ConanEdo on May 20, 2014, 03:58:21 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2014, 03:46:15 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 19, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
The article is just a little long...
Do not do it or I'll ban you.
Well...that was quick. Geezuz dude, you need to be less trigger happy. Take a break from the forums or something
I've had enough of negativity from you. I've created and I'm maintaining this forum for friends, not enemies. You have no right to be here other than the right I'm granting you.
Antagonise me one more time and I will remove your right to be here, permanently.
cross me again and I'll ban you, ConanEdo.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 20, 2014, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 20, 2014, 07:10:27 PM
And since when has healthcare become a need? Up until 19whenever it was, there was no such thing as health insurance. People survived without it. And forcing me to pay for someone who chose to smoke and then receive healthcare for it is stupid.
As for the post office, I'll do some research to find links.
It is necessary because health insurance allows people to receive healthcare which in turn allows Americans to survive longer and happier lives. Also, we would be paying for these people to receive health insurance anyways (through Medicare and the taxpayers pay for anyone who receives emergency healthcare services and can't pay for them), but this system allows the entire American public to act as a union of sorts, and use collective bargaining against the healthcare industry. If you had read the article, you would understand this concept. And to you "19whatever it was" remark I present this:
(http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/infant-mortality.jpg)
You graph can be explained much easier by the progress of technology. If not for obamacare and other socialist ideas, the graph would look better than it looks now, because what obamacare and socialism does is slowing the progress of technology. This is a fact of life.
Show me obamacare on this graph, then show me penicillin, ultrasound scanners, and vaccinations. 200 years ago favourite grand daughter of Queen Victoria died of disease which is now eradicated by antibiotics. All the riches of British Empire and all the power of its ruler could not help. Technology is what saves people, not robbing rich of their wealth.
Show me Red Cross and Gates charities on this graph.
Piotr take deep breaths. You were indeed wrong on this account seeing as nowhere in the iMtG law does it state, "you cannot post an article that is very long."
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 21, 2014, 07:53:02 AM
Piotr take deep breaths. You were indeed wrong on this account seeing as nowhere in the iMtG law does it state, "you cannot post an article that is very long."
The iMTG law states no stealing. Plagiarism is theft.
The graph is not plagiarism because it is properly cited. There was some, now removed, material pasted in here from an article without proper citation. That is what Piotr is upset about.
Wasn't it said "an article from time magazine"?
Quote from: The FullMetal Alchemist on May 21, 2014, 07:59:20 AM
Wasn't it said "an article from time magazine"?
Remember those works cited pages that you had to put at the end of your papers in high school. I think that is what he meant. You have to put it in that style.
Quote from: The FullMetal Alchemist on May 21, 2014, 07:59:20 AM
Wasn't it said "an article from time magazine"?
Like I said....improper citation. There is plenty of info on how to do it properly. Just making reference that all of the above content is from an article is still technically plagiarism
http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/613.htm
US copyright law allows you to copy excerpts from an article to comment and criticise. This is called fair use in law speak. Copy pasting an article in its entirety is a clear breach of copyright laws, and allows the times to execute legal actions under DMCA, which could cost me more time lost.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 21, 2014, 07:53:02 AM
Piotr take deep breaths. You were indeed wrong on this account seeing as nowhere in the iMtG law does it state, "you cannot post an article that is very long."
The iMTG law states no stealing. Plagiarism is theft.
The graph is not plagiarism because it is properly cited. There was some, now removed, material pasted in here from an article without proper citation. That is what Piotr is upset about.
Valid point. Kind of wish he said what he was angry about before, would've helped.
But anyway, all argus has to do is use easybib and then this whole tiny dispute can be over. :)
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 07:55:05 AM
Plagiarism is theft.
I think plagiarism is closer to lie than to theft, but it's not what happened.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 21, 2014, 07:53:02 AM
Piotr take deep breaths. You were indeed wrong on this account seeing as nowhere in the iMtG law does it state, "you cannot post an article that is very long."
I'm quite glad you resigned, your understanding of iMtG law is lacking. The law says: logic is the ultimate law, do not do to others what they do not want to be done to themselves. Do I want people breaching copyrights of The Times on my forum? No. Why? Logically, because it costs me time and money when people do this, as it is me receiving DMCA letters.
All I'm saying is that you should tell people which law you are enacting. After that fiasco months ago, I lost the ability to trust your judgement. Tell people which law you are upset about, it will be fixed, and people will be happy.
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 07:55:05 AM
Plagiarism is theft.
I think plagiarism is closer to lie than to theft, but it's not what happened.
What did happen if not plagiarism?
And plagiarism is defined as theft of another's intellectual property.
http://library.albany.edu/usered/plagiarism/
Quote from: ConanEdo on May 21, 2014, 11:20:25 AMPiotr, it appeared you were threatening to ban because someone posted an opinion you disagreed with, again. It was a misunderstanding, and I apologize for my part. However, I would hope that there were options such as discourse instead of going straight for the banhammer.
It was a misunderstanding in Aa case as well, I accept.
I'm a busy man. Sometimes I simply have no time to discuss things.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 07:55:05 AM
Plagiarism is theft.
I think plagiarism is closer to lie than to theft, but it's not what happened.
What did happen if not plagiarism?
And plagiarism is defined as theft of another's intellectual property.
http://library.albany.edu/usered/plagiarism/
Breach of agreement, a kind of lie, in my opinion. How do you define intellectual property?
I define it as what is present in the intellect of a subject of the iMtG law :)
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2014, 02:18:20 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 07:55:05 AM
Plagiarism is theft.
I think plagiarism is closer to lie than to theft, but it's not what happened.
What did happen if not plagiarism?
And plagiarism is defined as theft of another's intellectual property.
http://library.albany.edu/usered/plagiarism/
Breach of agreement, a kind of lie, in my opinion. How do you define intellectual property?
I define it as what is present in the intellect of a subject of the iMtG law :)
I would define intellectual property as something intangible that has value. Infringing on that property such as plagiarism or even illegally down loading software, music, movies or whatever would all be examples of intellectual property.
Piotr's iMtG app would be intellectual property IMO 😃
My definition is much simpler to understand, it implies that intellectual property does not exists beyond ones physical brain, according to the logic of reality, and the current science.
It would mean iMtG app is your property, sold to you under agreement of Apple EULA.
No worries....we are arguing semantics really 😉
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 21, 2014, 03:04:24 PM
No worries....we are arguing semantics really 😉
Definitions are super important.
Quote from: Taysby on May 21, 2014, 03:04:50 PM
So if it's my property, that means you can't ban me?.,.
Why of course, and you indeed can't ban me because here is iMtG server and it is my property, not yours ;)
However, I can't disable any of your modules or any functionality of any of the apps integrating with iMtG Gathering, which is fair enough I think?
Goddamn it debates.