America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,876 comments
- 1,800,679 views
- 6,425
- KCCO
Not the greatest video but it looked like (to me) when the video stops he's pointing the gun up...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 11,639
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
http://allenbwest.com/2014/12/quite-possibly-racist-article-will-ever-read/
Interesting stuff, and probably still up-to-date, even if I haven't heard of any more riots in Ferguson for the past weeks.
Interesting stuff, and probably still up-to-date, even if I haven't heard of any more riots in Ferguson for the past weeks.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It is an interesting article. I don't doubt that the lawyer sees what he claims to see, but he only sees mostly the criminal element. I think his anecdotal stereotypes are based purely on those who commit crimes.
What is important to note is that he sees a lack of proper family structure and a us vs the system mentality. I don't know how to address the family issue, but I would not be surprised to see a chart comparing lack of a father, or just two parents even, and amount of criminal convictions within certain demographics nearly match up.
The us vs. the system mentality, though. That's the biggest issue. With some of the leaders the black community has it is easy to see how people can feel that way. When you see a prominent figure from your demographic talking about how the system wants to hold you down for an arbitrary reason like race it is easy to believe that. That creates a mentality that you have to fight the system. That mentality causes the system to push back on you. What you get is a self-perpetuating cycle where police distrust blacks and the blacks react to them with their own distrust and defiance. What it results in is that the police are arresting more black men because they are watching them with less trust and then given a reason by the suspect.
If I am on the street and an officer walks by and asks me a question I will have a friendly conversation with him. But I have seen situations where a distrusting individual (not black in this case) reacts to the first question with, "Keep walking. I ain't doing nothing." Well, now he's going to test that.
- 31,714
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
This must be some sort of record
A 2 year old killer.
Stone cold toddler.
Edit.
Seems he is tied for the lead.
A 2 year old killer.
Stone cold toddler.
Edit.
Seems he is tied for the lead.
- 24,640
- Anoka, MN
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
That poor kid. The best thing for him would be to be adopted out of that family and into a new one where they never need tell him about what happened.
On a serious note...
Except for the part where she lets her 2 year old mess around in a purse with a loaded gun that is.
Sadly, she both won the Darwin award and gave her child scars that will never heal.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Just heard a report on the midday news - one year after the introduction of Obamacare, the number of Americans without private health insurance is at a fifty-year low.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Well, it isn't like they really had a choice. McDonalds would have record sales if everyone was required to buy a Big Mac every month.
But with those numbers with health insurance being at all time highs, so are the number of people complaining about their horrible plans that they can't afford and many doctors don't accept. I work for the Krntucky Prescription Assistance Program. You wouldn't believe how many people call us saying they are having trouble getting meds they easily got before Obamacare.
Tricky thing about insurance; it can be crappy. No one guaranteed them great insurance. In fact, Obamacare penalizes "Cadillac" plans with special taxes, discouraging the companies from even offering them. It's how I lost my 100% coverage plan.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
We had similar problems in the 1970s and 1980s when the Medicare system and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme were introduced. The solution was to introduce "bulk billing" - essentially allowing doctors to charge a flat rate for a consultation that they bill to Medicare if they so choose (thereby allowing specialists to charge their own rate). All of this is funded through a levy on income tax (with a safety net for lower income earners), which frees up insurance plans to cover major procedures and optional extras. By separating out the vast majority of consultations and funding them through income tax reform, doctors and specialists are guaranteed an income, and insurance premiums are kept down.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
No one is trying to fix anything. To do so would mean admitting they screwed up and/or sold the American people on a bum deal. Considering that they are trying to kill other assistance programs in my state, claiming they are now unnecessary, it appears that they are sticking to their guns.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
So the solution to this cluster:censored: is even more government intervention? Ri-i-i-ight.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Corruption and decadence? All political parties complicit?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Government efficiency at its best, ladies and gentlemen.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
You know exactly what I mean. There was resistance to begin with, but once the system was in place, it was quickly accepted. And now, thirty years later it's still highly effective.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Well, I don't expect to see ours get "fixed" within thirty years. People have insurance now that costs too much to use, leaving them no better off medically and out money they weren't forced to spend before, which is more than they would have spent by choice before. A fix means supporters admitting they lied or failed to understand their own plan (considering they had to pass it so we could know what was in it, no surprise). The only way they pull it off is to allow Republicans to try to kill the program and then hope to regain power so they can redesign the whole program and claim that they just fixed what the Republicans broke.
Even then, I think they have to get distance from Gruber's comments.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Having insurance is all fine and dandy, but what good is it when the doctors refuse to accept it? Getting insurance to the uninsured is only as good as the doctor that takes it.
The issue with Obama and the Democrat's plan is that they are destroying one of the very fundamentals of why insurance exists at all - Contract Law. Let's say that you are an employer who is paying for an insurance plan that breaks down to an per employee rate of $95 a week with no deductible. The employees view the insurance plan very favorably.
Now let's really break down the ACA. Under the Affordable Care Act, there are four tiers of health insurance that you are legally allowed to carry in the United States, and if you fail to carry an approved plan, you get slapped with a tax. Now how are the tiers calculated? The simple answer is that the tiers are calculated from how much the insurance company would pay for anything related to your medical health. The term in question is called Actuarial Value, or AV. If your plan's AV doesn't fall under the approved range of AV, you get slapped with a tax.
The tiers start at Bronze, which covers 58-62% of your medical bills, Silver is at 68-72%, Gold at 78-82% and finally Platinum at 88-92%. This means that even if you have a plan that pays 100% of your medical bills, you still get slapped with a tax because that plan doesn't fall under the approved ranges.
Every year, every plan gets a new AV, and if it isn't in the approved range, it's cancelled. This is the main reason why there is a big push for either repealing the ACA or transform it into a single payer system.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
That makes it sound more like the problem is in the insurance companies. If there are four tiers of insurance, then they would have to be very broad in order to catch as many existing insurance plans as possible. So if there are plans that are falling outside the scope of those tiers, then surely the insurance companies have more power to adjust the individual plans to fit within those tiers.
From the way everything is being described, the existing health insurance system seems to be geared towards making a profit for the company first and providing insurance second.
From the way everything is being described, the existing health insurance system seems to be geared towards making a profit for the company first and providing insurance second.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
If you ignore the fact that he said "legally required."
Those evil profits. How dare they stay in business and pay salaries and grow to reach more customers? Next doctors will be wanting to get paid and not being doctors purely out of the goodness of their hearts.
It should be noted that the pre-ACA insurance setup was formed from regulations championed by Ted Kennedy, creating HMOs. Fast forward to the early stages of the ACA and Ted Kennedy was once again trying to reform healthcare, blaming the HMOs. After his death the ACA was championed in his name. And again, it is a regulatory setup that costs more and screws the people over.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
There's nothing wrong with profits ... until you start looking at how to minimise expenses and start finding excuses not to pay out on claims.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
An apt comparison is auto insurance. In the United States, everyone is required to carry at least $35k in liability coverage, though that amount can vary from state to state. Liability coverage only pays out to the other guy if the accident was your fault. Roughly two thirds of drivers, don't quote me on this, carry better than liability coverage so that the incidental accidents and what not are covered by the insurance.
Now using the above as an example, if the federal government decides tomorrow to pass auto insurance reform tomorrow, and they required that all coverage fall into these four narrow bands that readjust every year, would you be mad that your full coverage on your car is no longer legal and you had to pay a tax to the IRS just because you had better than legal coverage?
Now using the above as an example, if the federal government decides tomorrow to pass auto insurance reform tomorrow, and they required that all coverage fall into these four narrow bands that readjust every year, would you be mad that your full coverage on your car is no longer legal and you had to pay a tax to the IRS just because you had better than legal coverage?
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
That is not really a accomplishment since its a "do it or else" insurance. If you don't sign up for insurance the IRS will give you penalties when you file for annual income tax. Trust me I know I am currently uninsured due to not being able to afford it ( premiums have skyrocketed since Obama care came out)
