I actually have a few fond memories of Blockbuster. My first memory was when my mom drove us thirty minutes to a Blockbuster and I remember being blown away but the sheer amount of movies. All of our local mom and pop stores had pretty poor selections. They also charged a yearly membership fee while Blockbuster was free.
Years later, I would visit this Blockbuster in college where I bought Night of the Living Dead for five bucks which completely rocked my world. This same Blockbuster had a section called "Le Bad Cinema". It was a collection of the worst movies ever made. There were movies that made Plan 9 from Outer Space look like an art house flick. Do a google search for "Moron Movies". Classic stuff. My friends and I watched all of the movies in that section.
That said, Blockbuster was a pretty nasty company. I believe they required objectionable movies to be edited and I don't think they rented unrated movies for a long period time. (MInd you, not porn but movies that were not submitted to the MPAA for a rating). Ultimately, they started focusing purely on new releases so it was downright impossible to rent a quality flick that was over five years old. Once I discovered Netflix, there was no going back. (And this was before the streaming service started).
It's a unique problem combined with poor assumptions on the part administration. Had the majority of states agreed to run their own exchanges, this problem wouldn't be so exaggerated. Instead, thirty five states opted to let the federal government run the show. The administration did not plan for this.
So in essence, the federal government had to build a site that not only takes federal guideline but individual state guidelines into consideration while building a high traffic infrastructure that is essentially accessing systems not designed for such load. Mind you, last year states were given a November 15th deadline to setup their exchange with some states given an extension. That's less than a year to build this system, overseen by some legislators who are doing everything possible to prevent the law from moving forward.
I'm frankly surprised it launched at all.
So, you are happy to pass on the cost of your irresponsibility which made it possible for you to be obese to the rest of us who take better care of ourselves ?
This is actually an interesting statement. Previous to Obmacare, this overweight fella was a "profit danger" thus he was uninsurable.
Now that he will have insurance, it is in the insurance companies benefit to get his weight down because it will cost less in the long run. Whatever you think of the law, it's a real positive thing now that the insurance companies goals are somewhat aligned with our own.
That actually used to be the case and but a law was passed that basically said all hospitals cannot turn away patients. Believe it or not, Regan of all people, was the president who signed it into law. You can read about it here:
I'm a young healthy guy. What I need is accident insurance. And it gave me that.
You had a junk policy. It might may have made you feel better to be "covered", but it would provide nothing in terms of coverage in case, god forbid, you did come down with anything serious (which, you know, happens all the time).
My niece required over a million dollars of care when she came down with cancer. Would your junk policy have done the same? No. You would have been bankrupted, and I would have to pay for all your additional trips to the emergency room plus any additional social services. Yes, your "freedom" has a cost and I'm tired of footing the bill for it.
I get that you think you are immortal and that there's nothing in the wings that has your name on it, but once you've been around the block a couple of times, you get know that bad things happen to good people. That's why we have insurance.
And yeah... for that, I hate you. You hurt me. You hurt my family. You hurt this country. And you're too dumb to realize it.
Growing up can be painful and your entire discourse shows that you have a lot growing up to do. If you hate me for rationally arguing the facts of the law, actually listening to your arguments, and not returning any of your personal barbs, then you do have a long road to walk, indeed.
One analysis shows that family of 4 will have an increas of $7500 a year, Obama promised a cut of $2500 a year
I've never seen such a study but I would be interested in viewing it if it does indeed exist.
You think the mandate sucks but think universal is good? What is the difference? Let me answer. Mandate = corporations run it, universal = government runs it. You are required to buy it either way, one through premiums with a choice, the other through taxes with no choice.
Incorrect. A mandate has nothing to do with who actually implements health care. All it means is that the action is on you whereas universal means action is not required. Now we can quibble whether a tax is considered "buying something" but the fact remains that health care would far cheaper since there would be no shareholders or profit margins in the equation.
As for the GOP input, give me a SPECIFIC example of what they put in it.
This took me all but two seconds to find. Like I said, I watched all the proceedings:
"Republican Sen. John Ensign scored a victory in his pursuit of healthy lifestyle rewards with passage of his amendment to health care reform legislation that would offer deep discounts to those who quit smoking, lose weight or otherwise meet healthy milestones." -- source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/01/john-ensign-scores-win-health-care-amendment/
There is ONE section and Obama has decided he will ignore that, and that was the part where Congress was required to be on exchanges and pay for it themselves
I have health insurance, idiot. My health insurance was deemed illegal by obamacare.
I don't know your situation so I'm only speculating, but it sounds like your policy didn't provide basic coverage. You may not think so, but the law is actually doing you a service in case you end up in a real mess. I would be interested to hear some details about the policy and the process it was deemed illegal.
Premiums around the country are doubling to tripling due to this legislation
The law may have contributed to increased premiums as insurance companies can do no longer discriminate again their customers. But you're not seeing the whole story. Customers have been receiving refunds due to these increases since the law states that 80% of a premium must be used for health care. Over one billion dollars have been refunded in 2012 because of the 80/20 rule. Also, there's also inflation, so there's a whole lot of stuff going on. Just keep in mind that even if the law didn't pass, your premiums would still be going up.
You wanted something. And you didn't care who you hurt to get it. It didn't matter that you were pissing our rights. It didn't matter that it would hurt the economy. Nothing matters to you if you get what you want. I'd call that evil if weren't so oblivious that you didn't even realize it.
We obviously see things differently from one another. I'm interested in why you think expanded health coverage is "evil" and why you see it as a freedom issue. The truth of the matter is that every person will require health care at some point in their lives. By not electing to be covered, I'm paying for your freedom through higher premiums in the worst possible way.
Now as for the mandate
But here's the thing
I wish Obama had made a push for universal care, then allowed Republicans to negotiate back to Romneycare (which is really what it is) so that Republicans would feel that like "they won" (remember, this is a republican plan once championed by the heritage folks). Now Republicans have nothing to offer outside of high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions which some states don't even offer.
Democrat stooge here with my "snarky" replies. Please enjoy.
Every trick in the book is on the table with this thing. By hook, crook, nail, and claw... this thing is going down or it will be so horribly scrambled that the democrats will wish it did die.
I can't really respond to this one. I will agree that the law isn't without issue. A lot of us on the progressive side believe in universal health so this was not the bill that we wanted. The good thing is that it does allow states to opt out of the implementation so long as they can provide their own implementation. Vermont is actually doing this in providing universal care to all its residents, but if your state has better ideas, then you do have options.
Granted, opting out of the law isn't an option. I'm sorry for you feel that you don't need health insurance, but I will that I am glad that you will have it when you need to go the hospital.
Politically, the republicans were completely sidelined for this thing. Utterly emasculated.
This is a talking point I hear a lot and I'm sorry, but it just is not true. The original legislation was drafted by three democrats and three republicans. Baucus ultimately shut down the drafting because Grassley was intentionally dragging his feet. I watched all the open committee hearings as the law was being debated because I was about to quit my job and deeply concerned about my family not being insured. Yes, there were lots of ridiculous amendments that were voted down without discussion, but there were lots of republican amendments that were accepted as well. For example, John Ensign was deeply concerned about the implications of the mandate and his suggestions were incorporated into the law.
To survive as a political organization, the republicans need to so thoroughly annihilate this move that the democrats for generations to come remember it.
Repealing the health care law alone will not save the republican party. Changing demographics is the huge issue. Can you believe analysts are predicting Texas may go purple in the next ten years? Granted, these are democrat analysts and may be foolishly optimistic, but they are actually investing money into the state which says more to me than press releases.
Let me opt out and we have peace. That's all we've ever wanted in this venture. Let people vote with their feet. If its such a great program you wont' need to force people to join it. If you do need to force people then its not actually a great program you irredeemable lying aholes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to healthcare, we are all in the same boat. To really let you opt-out of the health care system would mean forcing health care providers to require proof-of-insurance or ability to pay before being treated. Lack of proof would mean no treatment. I just don't see any other way.
As a long time slashdot user to another slashdot user, hang in there.
Yes, there will be a shitstorm. Microsoft really screwed up this launch and I think that's why he's leaving. After the DRM reversal, his number was up.
But I don't think for a moment that Microsoft is out of the console race. They're in it for the long game and as far as launches go, I still think the PS3 holds the title of the worst console launch.
I imagine in 2015 after the inevitable price drop, no one will even remember all the Microsoft cockups, but it's going to be a lot of painful months before Microsoft gets there.
Old trek fan here. I recently watched Star Trek 5 to some Plinkett and Rifftrax commentaries, and got a good laugh at it. Yet, to me, that cheesy movie, arguably the worst of all the star trek films, embodies the spirit of trek whereas the 2009 version does not.
It was about the collective drive to explore the unknown (and well, fly around in cheesy rocket boots) whereas the 2009 trek was about punching a bad guy in the face (and the enterprise being powered by beer brewing tanks). Mind you, I had a good time, but I don't consider it trek. That'd be like considering a child who dresses up in his father's clothes as the father himself.
And yes, some old trek episodes ARE GOOD as I remember. That has nothing to do with nostalgia but everything to do with good writing. Just sayin'.
Great argument guys
Hats off to both of you!