I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Hidden Cam: Guy Redistrributes Halloween Candy

Hits: 7433 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: CrakrJak
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, November 05, 2012 2:51:53 PM
Aaaand now that I've proven them wrong? They're gone!
You were absolutely right, "CrakrJak never proves ANYTHING!!!"
lolz!

OutWest
Male, 50-59, Western US
 548 Posts
Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:11:48 PM
LOL

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:13:12 PM
In other words, they are exempting those already covered by Social Security, the VA, or Indian Health Care from having to buy additional, extraneous insurance. Period. Nowhere does it exempt Congress, the President, or anyone else. YOU ARE WRONG. Yet again.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:12:46 PM
"For purposes of this subchapter, the term ‘exempt governmental program’ means—
‘‘(A) any insurance program established under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act,
‘‘(B) the medical assistance program established by
title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act,
‘‘(C) any program established by Federal law for providing medical care (other than through insurance policies) to individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason of such individuals being members of the Armed Forces of the United States or veterans, and
‘‘(D) any program established by Federal law for providing medical care (other than through insurance policies) to members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:11:06 PM
Crakr: At least you tried, now maybe you could learn how to post a link? After a text search, I found that section (on page 684) Are you misunderstanding or purposely misleading? The VERY NEXT paragraph defines your "Exempt Government program" or did you just think that was not relevant?

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:08:38 PM
5Cats: BITE ME. After just 16 minutes you assume "They're gone!"?? What a dick. And you also assume that Crakr's citation equals a WIN even when he says "It doesn't come right out and say it?" That was the whole point, asshat, that the ACA does NOT "come right out and say" what he claimed it did. Double dick for you, numbnuts.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25772 Posts
Saturday, November 03, 2012 9:21:25 AM
@CrakrJak: Aaaand now that you've proven them wrong? They're gone!
Next time: "CrakrJak never proves ANYTHING!!!"
lolz!

@Cajun: You got that right! Obama isn't the only PotUS to "skip around the Constitution" but he's done it MORE than any other.
And in worse ways! War on Libya without Congressional Approval = Impeachment!

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17183 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 9:05:01 PM
chalket: Page 628 of the signed bill,

"TREATMENT OF EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS.—
In the case of an exempt governmental program, no fee shall be imposed under section 4375 or section 4376 on any covered life under such program."

It doesn't come right out and say it, but sections 4375 and 4376 are for government employees and officials of the government. It also exempts the armed forces, vets and Indian tribes.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 6:30:55 PM
There is nothing remotely like it anywhere near page 113 in any of the following


Wouldn't that mean Obama is actually breaking the law by giving out these exemptions?

Wouldn't be the first time though...

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 3:12:21 PM
Since you are obviously so much more intelligent and educated than the rest of us, please show me exactly where the text of the ACA says what you claim it does.

I would like to see this as well as I have been unable to find it.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 12:43:46 PM
Crakr: Since you are obviously so much more intelligent and educated than the rest of us, please show me exactly where the text of the ACA says what you claim it does. I have exhausted myself trying to find it. There is nothing remotely like it anywhere near page 113 in any of the following:
H. R. 3590

TITLE I

Public Law 111–148

COMPILATION OF PPACA

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25772 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 11:03:22 AM
but what I *do* know is that I HATE dealing with insurance companies

@patchy: I know that feeling! Grrr!

BUT ObamaCare doesn't "Canadianize" the American system at all! It FORCES (at gunpoint) US Citizens to BUY insurance from PRIVATE companies!
This should be illegal under their Constitution, BUT the US-Supreme said it's a "tax" and therefore it's OK.
WAAAAAAT?

So THAT is why we right-thinking folks oppose it. Obama wants the WORST of both systems!

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 10:46:23 AM
[quote">If your best advice is to forego insurance and "pray and hope" for the best is reckless and not feasible[/quote">

Average cost of ER visit: $1300
Average annual premium for a single person: $5000

Odds that an adult will visit an ER within a year: One in five

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 10:31:59 AM
It's part of their job to make things as complicated as possible in order to deny claims, because HMOs are not in the business to help people, every claim approved is lost revenue.


This scheme is possible courtesy of the unconstitutional bans on cross-state health insurance states impose.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 10:05:42 AM
it's actually your private system that is the more inefficient


First of all, lower admin costs do not necessarily mean higher quality of care. As a matter of fact, HHS has ways of hiding MediCare and MedicAid costs in other portions of the Departments (even OTHER Departments). Those administrative costs go to questioning certain procedures and how much hospitals charge. Public option, and other third party schemes, shield consumers from the costs of the services rendered. Since no one is "questioning" the costs per se, that encourages hospitals to raise prices and engage in more questionable practices. Case in point: in 2007 the Federal Govt paid $102 million to investigate MediCare fraud only to prosecute $20 million worth of it.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 8:06:10 AM
It's just in their best interests to make things maddeningly difficult.

Regarding capitalism (and deregulation) though, wouldn't this line of thinking lead to competition undercutting the "bad" HMOs? Of course it would take time, and people would get screwed until then, but eventually a decent system has to be worked out (one would think)...

They both throw money out the window on the stupidest things, and administration is one big circle-jerk.

True... Though there's the concern between private and public funds... (if you consider it a concern).

Would 100% privatization be the cure? Perhaps.

I tend to think a capitalistic approach would be best, though I can't know for sure. After that, a single-payer system (like yours) is best. The absolute worst is our 3rd party payer system. Conflict of interests anyone?

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 7:50:30 AM
However, in our system, I believe they actually serve an antagonistic purpose.


This is entirely possible. Perhaps the best argument against universal care in the US is that it just won't work in your system, due to the huge impact of the HMOs and drug companies on your economy. Would 100% privatization be the cure? Perhaps. I can't know for sure, but what I *do* know is that I HATE dealing with insurance companies. When I go to the doctor, I don't have to fill out any forms, I just show my health card and take a seat. I don't have to quibble with insurance people, or engage in month-long correspondence to justify a charge. I do have supplemental Blue Cross to help with some medications, because I tend to get all the bad genetic problems in my family, and in my limited experience with them, I have had more headaches than I can count.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 7:39:52 AM
Perhaps this is due to governmental regulation though? Private sector businesses left alone tend not to overburden themselves.

Well in this case I seriously doubt it. But let's analyze: HMOs have labyrinthian administration on purpose. Why? It's part of their job to make things as complicated as possible in order to deny claims, because HMOs are not in the business to help people, every claim approved is lost revenue. It's just in their best interests to make things maddeningly difficult. To your second point, I have friends that work in large corporations such as GE, Syncrude, and others. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is *no* difference between wasteful administration policies of government and large corporations. They both throw money out the window on the stupidest things, and administration is one big circle-jerk.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25772 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 2:49:37 AM
"If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail." - @patchy

"What if the problem is a nail afterall?" - @HumanAction

"Then I guess everything just came up Milhouse " -@patchy

See? THIS is why IAB can be a great place! A good time was had by all!

I'd say it this way:
Capitalist: Oh look! A nail! (goes into tool box and selects a hammer) This should efficiently do the job!
BANG BANG BANG!
Cost = $

Government: Oh look! A nail! At least it looks like a nail, better commission a study.
(months later)
Ok, they've confirmed the "nail-ness" of the problem. Let's see: equal opportunity laws apply here, so we must allow ALL the tools equal access!
Screwdriver: nope...
Plyers: nope...
Belt Sander: nope...
(months later)
Hammer: BANG BANG BANG! Hey! The Government solved the problem! Hooray!
Cost: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ *gasp*

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25772 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 2:40:26 AM
SO where is the Video where BARACK OBAMA takes your candy, and gives it to some Chinesse kids?

Fixed it for you @Bluntman! It is, in fact, Obama who has borrowed 6,000,000,000,000 pieces of candy from the Chinese. What are y'all going to do when China demands their candy back?
Go smoke another, boy, & come back when you can form a coherent sentence...

@patchy: My POINT is that one should be FREE to CHOOSE, not have the gov't decise that "one size fits all" eh?
A little insurance, none, a lot? NO! Only Obama can decide that!
We'd all have more money in our pockets, so it's quite possible we could afford those expensive things.

As to the content of this video, it assumes the same thing that most conservatives assume, which is that it's just lazy, unmotivated people trying to get something for nothing.

Did we watch the same video? Explain.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25772 Posts
Friday, November 02, 2012 2:29:42 AM
Alright 5Cats, I will "go one."

@Burton_Ian: Ah, the old "attack the typo" defence! That's ALL you got? It IS all you got! lolz! How sad.
Truth Be Told: For the first time in YEARS I did, indeed, get out the thesaurus! However that's because it was quicker to check the spelling, and to make sure the words I'd chose were actually accurate. My vocabulary is just dandy, thanks.

What are you blathering on about?
Taxation = the gov't taking your money through 'social contract'.
Redistribution of wealth = the gov't taking your money... at gunpoint.
They're not even REMOTELY associated, except for the 'take your money' part.

And that is a neat graph, but it forgets to factor in disposable income...

Huh? What? One would presume that all the money left over after taxes counts as "disposable income", DUH! "flat tax" is someone elses issue...

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17183 Posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:25:04 PM
chalket: Obamacare was rushed into drafting by several groups, according to the NY Times that published an article about the subject. But page 113 line 22 is still in the bill and does say it exempts members of congress and the president from it's provisions. But as you noted that's in conflict with what it states further on in the bill.

No one knows yet just how this conflict is to be resolved, but it will take further legislation to correct this and other contradictions in Obamacare, that is if it isn't repealed and replaced by then.

bluntman1138
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 28 Posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012 7:23:33 PM
SO where is the Video where Romnyy takes your candy, and gives it to some Chinesse kids?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:39:00 PM
@patchgrabber: Insurance companies have labyrinthian administration

Perhaps this is due to governmental regulation though? Private sector businesses left alone tend not to overburden themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think with healthcare the government must be involved. However, in our system, I believe they actually serve an antagonistic purpose.

I know you dislike government but they aren't always the worst

I know that - anarchists are...

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:53:10 PM
Oh come on, McGovern... don't you even care how stupid you make yourself look? That neo-con propaganda has been thoroughly debunked, I guess you missed the memo.

"It’s a great story – but it certainly is not the true story. Indeed, you may be surprised to learn that once the lion’s share of the ACA kicks in on January 1, 2014, not only are Members of Congress and their staff obligated to play by the same rules as the rest of us, they will actually be required to follow a more restrictive path to their health insurance than you and I." from that progressive bastion, FORBES

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.