Games are depressing...or are they?

[Fuzz_Ball]

OK, Nameless, did you also follow the link to the MSNBC article?
That further paints gamers in a pathetic light.
Of course, MSNBC NEVER sensationalises or creates headlines or doom & gloom stories.

In a commentary, Dr. Brian A. Primack of the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine agrees, and asks: "How do we simultaneously help the public steer away from imitation playlike activities, harness the potentially positive aspects of video games and keep in perspective the overall place of video games in our society?"

You have no idea about where I got the idea about taxation? You're not an American citizen are you? Haven't you seen the pattern? They came after tobacco, are always after alcohol and they've assaulted our cars and trucks. Let's not forget the evil Trans-Fatty Acids! Whenever something is deemed unhealthy or bad for the environment, government entities feel it is their right and duty , in the interest of saving humanity from itself, to tax the crap out it for "further studies" and "help the public steer away"...

I don't like what's going on with pop-culture politics these days: create a villain and then offer the solution. They then employ the news sources to repeat the message and ridicule anyone who has an opposing viewpoint. Many of of these solutions include curtailing peoples' freedoms and demanding higher taxes from a nation that already gives half of its income to a wasteful government. Whenever I see a new "vice" identified and villified, it is only a matter time for some special interest group to see the opportunity to attack it. Whether that happens to gamers is not certain but this article certainly sets the stage in case someone wants to start their crusade. Afterall, gaming IS a big industry and if players are as addicted as claimed, they'll pay up.

[Hermskii]

I think I love you Fuzz_Ball.

[a nameless entity]

OK, Nameless, did you also follow the link to the MSNBC article?

No I didn't until now, actually.
But I didn't see anything new there, although I admit I just skimmed the article.

You have no idea about where I got the idea about taxation? You're not an American citizen are you?

Nope! I'm Canadian, eh.
We haven't had cheap booze, smokes, or low taxes since I was a teenager. We've already lived through what you're only now beginning to experience down there.

As for the rest, you worry too much. You guys are looking under the bed for someone who wants to take away your personal freedoms far too often. But on the other hand, I support your right to be a fat, lonely, and depressed video gamer.

I think I love you Fuzz_Ball.

Some day, somehow, Hermskii is going to vote Democrat. And when that day comes, life as we know it will come to a

[Spice]

come to a? come to a what? for the love of all that is good tell us

im also candian eh? but 9 times out of 10 i cant spell canada to save my life

[Hermskii]

Hermskii supports fiscally conservative republican beliefs. I sure am not saying that everything Repulicans do is right and Nameless is right when he said that the Republicans had the run of this country for 8 years and managed to mess it up pretty bad before handing it over to the Dems but I can't let Dems use my money to pay $100,000 to buy a used car stereo from a pawn shop. I feel that is how wasteful our current administration is being and I hope that Nameless keeps coming back to this topic every several months so we can see where we are going.

I think President Obama (note the respect unlike people who just called Presidenet Bush BUSH) will get the healthcare bill pushed through but it will be watered down at best. More on this tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

[a nameless entity]

Did you watch President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress?

I was disappointed with that Doctor's "Republican Party Reply", since he deftly slipped in a few of the distortions the rabid right have been making all along, right after your president slammed that nonsense, and asked for a meaningful discussion.

[Hermskii]

No, I actually did not see it however I am versed with this bill so I'm anxious to see what you say the President dismissed. As near as I can tell, the bill is totally full of it exactly as many people have claimed.

I'll watch it and see. Hey, Nameless, do you get the Fox News Channel up there? If so, I'll ask that you don't watch it. Don't watch any of it except the OReilly Factor. Watch it only and only on Tuesday and Wednesday nights please. Do it for one month and you'll start to see that Fox actually reports all of the news and not just half of it. They also usually report it days ahead of any other news outlet.

Do you know Van Jones? Did you see CNN busting him for being a socialist, a communist? Hell no. Oh crap, you got me started. I must go now. PEACE!

[Fuzz_Ball]

Enough loony left slobbering over the current White House Occupant's plans to usurp ONE EIGHTH of the US economy.

I think we can agree that health care's current problems can include: affordability, accessibility, portability, and quality. But there is less agreement on policy path for reform.

Democrat proposals for a new public health plan and a federal health insurance exchange, as well as an individual mandate to purchase government-approved benefits; if you do not participate, you will be fined and/or taxed. This will be a massive one-size-fits-all government system, and it would depend on flawed financing schemes, new mandates, and higher taxes to pay for it.

Under the guise of good intentions, this proposed plan is nothing more than more government control of the private sector. A LARGE chunk of the economy, I might add. And besides wasting OUR money, what else are they good at?

According to Obama's plan, there will be a Federal Health Board (Tom Daschle has been considered to head) that would be "insulated from politics" (that means acountable to NO ONE) and have enormous power over medical decisions affecting every American. The federal government would decide the level of health benefits that Americans would receive.

Do we, in the US really want the Federal government to determine the "comparative effectiveness" of YOUR medical treatments and procedures? Some 35 year old Washington elitest may think that you and your wife are "too old" and filling your prescriptions are no longer "cost effective".

You are quick to dismiss opposition as trivial?? Open your eyes. The "State Run Media" is big business and they have a party to support. Meaningful discussion? That simply means you agree with the DNC. and its supreme leader.

I and others are concerned that a centralized system of federal decision-making would:

•Diminish individuals' control over their personal health care decisions;
•Directly undermine state autonomy and authority in health policy, undercutting both innovation and experimentation to expand coverage and deliver quality care, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens;
•Generate and perpetuate unsustainable federal spending; and
•Ultimately, in the face of serious budget crises, lead to government rationing of care and services.

[a nameless entity]

No I don't get Fox up here any more. I had to buy a digital to analogue converter box to be able to continue watching US television. For whatever reason Fox and PBS signals, which used to be the two strongest signals I received in analogue, are now reduced to the two weakest. Reception of PBS fades frequently, usually just as you are about to find out "who done it" during a mystery show. Fox has disappeared entirely. That's actually a relief to me, since I no longer could watch that O'Reilly person -even if I wanted to- start screaming and yelling at his guests to "shut up" so that he can burst a blood vessel while he screams and rants at them. Surely you are just pulling my chain here, Herm?

Getting back to the issue at hand, it seems that both sides think the other is just a pack of useless liars. No wonder nothing has ever gotten done. In fact I'm surprised that any kind of governing is getting done in this kind of atmosphere.

If you think I'm just some left wing outsider that agrees with everything the Obama plan proposes, you are incorrect. Very much so. I think a Canadian style single-payer health care system would be much better. Up here each province administers their own single-payer system. This gives them the option of deciding for themselves what is most important in all areas. What they must meet are certain Federally mandated minimum standards. Since our constitution does not allow the Federal government to just dictate what those standards would be, all of the provinces had to get together with the Feds and hammer out a set of standards that all could agree on.

What the Canadian system actually covers is just this: Hospital care. Basic ward level care. That's all. There is NO dental coverage (except hospital surgery). NO prescription drug coverage. (Most provinces have plans that help the poor, but that is at their discretion.) NO semi private or private room coverage. You get put in a ward. (Around here this means four persons to a room.)
If you want a semi or private hospital room you may have one, but it costs you extra. Most people buy insurance for this, or get it as a perk from an employer. The same with Dental and Prescription Drugs. You get the coverage through insurance.
Visits to the doctor's office are also covered, but not everything is covered. It's similar in level to the hospital care. You get the basic doctoring, but you pay for the rest yourself. What is considered basic varies from province to province.

At first the insurance companies and doctors up here resisted the change to a nationalized health scheme. But when the doctors found that they got paid each and every time they performed a service, even if it was a little less than they would have liked to charge, they were happy to make more money overall since there were no defaults on payment. Also, their offices filled up with patients who could now afford to see a doctor. They got even richer as a result.

The insurance companies quickly woke up to the fact that they were raking in the cash also. By putting the not so profitable end of health care onto the national system, they saved lots. And since most people want dental and drug plans, as well as semi private or private rooms, they cleaned up even more. In short, they still got to do lots of business, and most of it was pure gravy.

I'm very hopeful that President Obama is correct when he says that by rolling all of the apparently very inefficient patchwork systems of health care that now exist in the US into one organization billions will be saved that is currently being wasted. If that can be done and the savings realized, perhaps the rest will fall into place.
It does seem however that the vested interests that oppose change at all costs need to wake up first, and find new ways to make money under a new system.
Or maybe the Democrats really are just a bunch of dirty socialist liars, and everything is fine the way it is. Time will tell.