It's curious. I could swear that I have heard Spike's voice somewhere else. Apparently he's voiced by Cathy Weseluck, but none of her other roles rings a bell. Perhaps it's just such a generic "young cartoon boy character" voice that several actresses sound alike?
I'm talking about people who by choice decide not to get insurance just because they don't want to pay.
The point is that your health should not be dependent on some insurance that you have to pay. In other words, the entire situation ("he decided not to pay insurance and now he dies") should be ridiculous.
This is certainly not the same thing as "he refused to pay his car insurance, and when he wrecked it, he lost it", even though you make it sound like it is. Human life is not comparable.
Same logic applies to food, even though the type and quantity of food varies wildly from person to person. You can stretch this argument even further, and say a psychologist should be free for all individuals. By some weird utilitarian logic that would probably increase the overall happiness of the community.
In many countries all those are actually free for people who can't otherwise afford them. Likewise if you are rich, there's nothing stopping you from going to a private doctor rather than using public healthcare (especially if you think that you will get better treatment that way).
There's a practical reason why free food is not automatic, though. If it was, the economy of the country would probably collapse, and then nobody would be very happy.
You could thus argue that the economy would collapse if everybody had free medical care, but practical examples have shown this to not to be the case. Medical care can be fully tax-funded without the economy collapsing.
I seriously wonder if people who have voted no and meh have done so purely because the name "Barbie" appears on the title of the game, and if they had voted yes if the game had been named something else completely (such as "Castlevania: Diana's quest" or the like).
I mean let's say I don't get insurance for my car and then I crash it. Since I didn't get insurance, I need to pay for a new car myself, right? So why shouldn't the same logic apply to health insurance?
Because human life is significantly more important than a car. It's the duty of the entire community to take care of each individual. This basic right should not be tied to how much money you own.
I'm an anti-MLP, and the way I practice my anti-MLPness is to do nothing, and to hope that this fad dies or gets considerably reduced after Season 2. Because every fad has an end.
If the show makes you laugh and feel emotions, is it all that bad to watch it? Can't it just be harmless fun? There are definitely worse things to watch on TV or the internet.
Barbie is a jedi. (Compare to the recent Star Wars submission.)
This was a surprisingly entertaining run. I was definitely not expecting that from the name of the game. It almost felt like watching a Castlevania run (music and all). Yes vote.
The whole healthcare system in the US, and especially the attitudes most people have there about it, is just stupid. The US is basically the only western country (and perhaps even the only country in the world) that has this system. Not only do people suffer and die unnecessarily because of it, but it's also less cost-effective than an efficient universal healthcare system.
The reason why people in the US have such a strong aversion towards universal healthcare is not because of any rational reasons, but purely because of propaganda, and this is a well-documented fact. The origins can be found in the so-called Second Red Scare and the McCarthyism era. This was a time where a large-scale governmental propaganda campaign against communism and socialism was enacted by the US government. This is the origin of such notions as communism being strongly associated with atheism, the US being a strongly Christian nation (as a contrast to the atheist communists), the inclusion of the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance and the money, and an overall demonization of the whole concept of socialism (even though the vast majority of US citizens don't even know what the basic tenets of socialism are).
One of the victims of this propaganda was the healthcare system: For some reason the government decided that universal healthcare is strongly associated with socialism, and hence must be avoided at all costs. It didn't help that many presidents, especially Reagan, publicly and strongly vilified universal healthcare and associated it with the scary socialism.
So even today, in 2011, most people in the US strongly associate universal healthcare with socialism, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with it. So this is really a double stupidity: The irrational fear of socialism (even though most US citizens don't even know what it is all about), and the strong association of universal healthcare with it (even though it has nothing to do with it). A triple stupidity, in fact, because most western European countries have universal healthcare and are not generally considered "socialist" countries (although I'm sure many Americans would classify them as such on that basis only).
So do you think that an adult who knows the risks and voluntarily decides to not get insurance because he doesn't want to pay the fees should then be treated on someone else's dime? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. He could've chosen differently, but he decided to take a risk. He should, therefore, be the one who faces the consequences if that risk doesn't pay off.
Well, that's how it works here (and in the majority of Europe, really). It's probable that you, living also here, have taken advantage of this (especially in your childhood).
This is one rather good use of tax money. I don't have any problem with it.
Moreover, studies have shown time and again that the healthcare system used in the US is significantly less cost-effective than the one used in most western European countries. In other words, not only are more people saved by universal healthcare, it's also cheaper overall.
You can't even argue that it's unfair that rich people are getting the same "free" treatment and poor people. No they aren't: They pay more taxes.
The problem with that solution is that some islamic governments endorse the terrorist groups. Of course publicly they state the contrary, for obvious PR reasons, but often they don't even bother hiding it too much. It's basically a public secret.
In other words, what should be done when it's the same people who run the terrorist groups and also the country?
Europe's (and the UN's) solution to this dilemma is to just sit on its ass and hope the problem goes away on its own. US's solution is to consider it an open war and act accordingly. Is one of these solutions better than the other? Most people have a strong opinion on this, but it's far, far from a trivial question. The subject is very complicated.
What a charming little game... er... I mean... Aaargh! Pink! Too much pink! My eyes! I feel my testosterone levels dropping.
I'm tempted to vote yes simply because of all the hatred. OTOH, 28 minutes of a slow-paced game might be a bit too much. Perhaps if it was 10 minutes or less...
It's not a horrible run, though. I have definitely seen more boring runs published. I'll vote meh.
(Although, if this run is published, which it probably won't be, but if, then this text should be added to the description: "Warning: Watching this video may lower testosterone levels.")
A windows game that looks worse than the original NES game that it's parodying? What a waste, I'd say.
As for the run itself, I'm undecided on what to vote.
What scares me is the audience. Listen to their response to the questions.
Anyways, I still wouldn't vote for someone who advocates uninsured people to be treated like second-class citizens, the sole reason being the braindead idea that universal healthcare = socialism. (If that were true, then the entirety of western Europe would be socialist.) People are dying in the US because of the "Red Scare". People who wouldn't have to.
You do realize that what will be falling is debris, rather than the satellite as a whole? (Not that the chunks of debris cannot be dangerous if they hit a building or such, but probably not as catastrophic as if the entire satellite were to crash at terminal speed.)
No because
* bad game choice
* bullshit pony meme
* 4chan/reddit
This exactly.
Do you realize that you are invalidating your own no vote? (At least if the judges judge impartially and according to the principles of the site.)
No different from "I voted no because I hate Mario games" (when voting on a Mario game).
In plain english. He wants the TAS removed because it was not the first one to reach that frame count on that game. As soon as someone figures out a way to save a frame, he will be perfectly fine with it being submitted.
He has much less exclusive rights to the record than he has to the contents of the keypress file. A record is not even remotely copyrightable, not even in principle.
