James

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']This, a thousand times over. I've lost count of the times that friends, family and even myself have had to FIGHT the insurance companies to get coverage on procedures. Sooner or later, you get exasperated, and give up on fighting it. You still have to pay the bill anyway, regardless of whether or not your insurance will finally pay like they should. Hell, even when my father passed away recently, his insurance attempted to bail on covering nearly $100,000 worth of procedures that were done while he was in the hospital during his final week.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right. In other words, the existing system is utterly ridiculous. What you've said here underscores my point that a system controlled by insurance companies will [i]never[/i] err on the side of the patient. Ever. There is clear evidence that people working for insurance firms actually receive financial bonuses based on the number of patients they [i]reject[/i] - that alone should raise alarm bells. Surely the performance goal should be to increase the number of satisfactory outcomes where patients are given appropriate care and/or advice. You know what really bothers me about the current debate in America, though? It's the lies - particularly those pushed by the conservative side of politics. Anyone who has followed anything I've said on OB over the years knows that I regularly try to counterbalance situations where conservatives are (in my view) unfairly attacked for all manner of things (particularly foreign policy). So I am certainly not someone who simply criticizes conservatives for no apparent reason. But what I've seen in the healthcare debate is actually quite shocking, in terms of the desperation of the Republican party when it comes to attacking foreign healthcare systems. I've seen a number of things thrown up about the UK's NHS...all of which were outright lies. And I mean [b]all[/b], not just a few. Some are so extreme that I actually wonder if they were spoken by a member of Congress! So it seems that this paranoia about perceived socialism continues to overtake sane, logical discussion. It's bizarrely unique to America and it's something I don't think the rest of the world quite understands. In this, I feel very sorry for those people who are pushing for any kind of healthcare reform - especially those who have had terrible experience with insurance companies. It really must feel like you're fighting a constant uphill battle.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I know this has been responded to by just about everyone, but I did want to reply myself:[/font] [quote]Why do people want the government to do things for them? Where does personal responsibility begin and end? Why do we want a nanny state? When did human beings become so helpless and shiftless and pointless?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]So, to answer your questions... [b]"Why do people want the government to do things for them?"[/b] Isn't there an immediate contradiction in this question? Government's [i]entire purpose[/i] is to serve its citizenry by providing a number of critical services. As I've already said before, government is already responsible for countless public services. You may throw up the argument that those services suck or whatever, but that isn't purely [i]because[/i] government is involved - there isn't necessarily a causality there. Some public organizations work well, others function terribly. This is also true of private business. I'd really wonder what it'd be like to have a mail system or a defense system entirely operated and funded by private insurance companies - what a nightmare! The alternative may still not be ideal, but at least these systems are answerable to voters rather than shareholders. [b]"Where does personal responsibility begin and end?"[/b] Well what do you mean by that? Public health care doesn't in any way negate personal responsibility. I just don't see how you are linking the two. If your argument is that we are all responsible for purchasing our own health care, then I'd agree in principle, but I think you are taking that to the extreme if you think that there can't be any room for a public alternative. There is this illusion that because the current system is largely "private", people are automatically getting a better deal somehow. The logic is that private industry is more competitive, can keep costs lower and can provide more choice. But to some degree this is a fallacy and a blatant one. The medical insurance industry doesn't operate on a truly competitive basis - it operates as an oligopoly. As a result, any competition that exists has little to do with providing better customer service and more to do with how high each company can push its respective margins. Pushing up margins equates to less provision of care. So it is in the interests of shareholders and insurers to provide as little coverage as possible. In many ways an oligopoly is worse than a public entity, because there are few regulating forces that demand a benchmark of quality or service delivery. At least in a public system, the driving force is not profit, it is the provision of adequate service. And government-owned systems don't answer to shareholders - they answer to voters. Big difference. In reality I think there is room for both public and private options. But there needs to be a counterweight to the private system, especially for people who are paying an utter fortune but who receive little bang for their buck. Those people don't deserve to be ripped off simply because they're dealing with private enterprise. [b]"Why do we want a nanny state?"[/b] But who is advocating a nanny state? I'm not and I'm sure many others aren't either. Nanny state implies government control rather than simply a publicly funded option. In Australia, where we have a public option, there are no real restrictions or controls on your choices as a patient - certainly no more than in the private system. You can still choose your own doctor, clinic, etc etc... "Nanny state" is an extreme. I think most people want a middle ground. [b]"When did human beings become so helpless and shiftless and pointless?"[/b] Helpless how? Because not everyone wants to be gouged by medical insurance oligarchs? Far from being helpless, the desire for health reform shows a willingness to participate and to address long term problems with the system. [/font] [quote]Everyone here appears to believe that the welfare of an individual is dependent on the actions of the state. Why? And what makes you believe that the government can spend money that isn't actually in the bank to benefit everyone? Will it truly benefit everyone? Or just the people who have access? What incentive will doctors have to stay here?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]But again, you're extrapolating to the extreme. I don't think anybody said that an individual's welfare is dependent on the actions of the state. Rather, people are pointing out that a large element of government's role is to provide and support critical services. This doesn't in any way seek to take choice away from the individual, at least in terms of what most people here seem to be advocating. In terms of spending money, that's another issue. But either way, people will be paying for health care - whether it's via the tax system or via private insurance. Arguably it's possible to pay less for a public system due to the oligopoly situation with the private insurance industry. If you really didn't want to have a public alternative though, it would be necessary to at least radically reform the private system - and I doubt that will happen anytime soon. As for incentive for doctors, I'm not sure what you mean. What is the disincentive for them? As long as the doctor is getting paid for doing consultations or whatever, then I don't really see the difference. If anything, the doctor may find less resistance if he's claiming from, say, a "medicare" system as opposed to a combative private insurer. Again, in Australia, doctors can decide whether or not patients pay privately or whether they "bulk bill" (i.e. claim via Medicare). Doctors and their offices have this choice - nobody dictates which way they must go. Some even do a combination of both.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Haha, it might take a few. :catgirl: I'm really eager to get this thing going again, but the post I've been writing up is...well, terrible. It just doesn't work at all. I think that we need to skip PJ's post and move to a new Landmark. As far as the fashion show goes, I think I need to handle that in a very different way (if at all). It might be necessary to move in a slightly different direction there. Hrm. Does anyone have ideas about what the next Landmark should be? I haven't been able to catch Shy on AIM so we haven't had much discussion about this. It might be good for us to collaborate in this thread so that everyone can brainstorm. It'd be great to get this show back on the road. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Before you ridicule people who have a problem with nationalized health care, perhaps you would do well to read Obama's plan before assuming that everyone opposed to it is completely insane, a die hard Republican, or more or less just being stubborn.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]In my case, I've heard a little bit about Obama's plan but because I don't know the detail, I don't think it's right for me to comment one way or the other (thank you for the link Rach). This is especially because America's healthcare system is already so complex and broken that fundamental reform is obviously required. Unfortunately, fundamentally reforming [i]anything[/i] is extremely difficult to do - both practically and politically. Most people will refuse radical change in favor of the status quo, even if the status quo is less than functional. In terms of my overall criticisms - I know they are strong - but it needs to be said. There are many people who simply oppose [i]any[/i] public involvement, no matter what the form (i.e. whether mandated or optional). The justifications for this opposition are usually centered around the same bankrupt arguments, backed by a combination of ignorance and paranoia. I think that America has given the world many great things, but it doesn't hurt to actually look at what other people are doing around the world and cherrypick the very best ideas out there. After all, it should always be about people's health and not about politics or who has what idea, etc...[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Why should I pay for Joe's health care with my taxes? Or his welfare for that matter. We already have a nationalized form of health care for low income people in my state. And guess what, it's paid for by our taxes. And here's another surprise. The system has no money left. It's borrowing from other branches of the state budget.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]So, why pay for Joe's roads? Why pay for his postal service? Why pay taxes for [i]any[/i] public services? It's a facetious argument - it's very much akin to the slogan "no war for oil"; it sounds nice, but totally misunderstands the complex reality. I don't have a great understanding of the mindfield that represents the current U.S. health system, but I have yet to see a reasonable argument in favor of a completely private system. Unfortunately, Americans spend a great deal of time talking about the inefficiencies of healthcare systems in other countries, even though they are the [i]least[/i] qualified to discuss a functioning healthcare model. The hypocrisy of this situation is glaring to most - it should be more glaring to those who refuse to entertain alternatives to the status quo in America. While I don't think that an "all public" system is necessarily a good idea (and I don't even know if it's being proposed), I am tired of hearing the same simplistic "reds under the bed" arguments, which tend to come from people who have an irrational fear of anything involving the word "public". I often think that the symbolism - and utter ignorance about the reality - outweighs any desire to actually reform healthcare and bring America into the first world where it really belongs. (Note: I don't even necessarily think that the Obama plan - which I know little about - is the right plan. My overall point, though, is that America will need to consider hybrid alternative models if it is ever going to drag itself out of its currently under-performing, high-cost "health" system).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Unfortunately I pretty much agree with what others are saying here... Twitter is down? Uh... meh? :P I've never used Twitter or been remotely interested in the concept, so I'm not missing it at all. These days I don't even really use the 'net all that much outside reading news sites and such. I'd actually say that my most visited site these days is probably Wikipedia. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Hm, no, I don't think we need to over-think it too much - especially considering that there isn't exactly a huge amount of convention-related discussion going on. My thinking though is that a lot of readers could be mistaking this forum's purpose because of its name. I'm also not sure that events and conventions fit together for OB purposes, but it might be worth incorporating convention discussion in some official way somewhere - without creating more forums.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Er, no, I don't think Lady Gaga is a transvestite, but even if she were...why would she need to change her name as a result? I don't even like her name - who does? - but let's face it, it's now a brand. It's what she's known as. Her bizarre clothing style is part of that brand. Changing it would be a little short-sighted. The brand itself has power now and it works in her favour. So yeah, I don't think any change is necessary.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Question: do we have a World on theOtaku specifically for cons? Maybe we can link this over there too. Perhaps we should try to use this forum a bit more for convention type stuff as well as general events. What do you guys think?[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that in recent times it's become sort of popular to knock FFVII in one way or another, or to claim that it's "overrated". One of the problems with that though, is that we are always looking backwards with 20/20 vision. I distinctly remember FFVII when it was still new and fresh and there were very valid reasons for its success (both critical and commercial). Unfortunately it hasn't aged well and I think we sometimes judge the game based on today's criteria, rather than actually considering its value in context. Of course, having said that, it's still worthy of plenty of criticism. I just think it's sort of become the arch-enemy of the RPG intelligentsia, which is unfortunate. Anyway, a remake? We've been hearing about this for years with no real result. I am not expecting anything, but I would personally like to see a remake. There are a few reasons for this. First and foremost, I think that the game's art design almost begs to be refreshed with a big set of HD lenses. Let's face it, the game was very much about art design and today's technology could do wonders to further enhance this. Also it would be great to get proper, fully-orchestrated music, better controls and maybe several other tweaks to gameplay. In other words, a simple visual remake would be nice... but it'd be [i]great[/i] to see something with a bit more love and care taken. And, frankly, if we get more remake and less crappy spin-offs... I'd be happy with that. Although I am currently playing Crisis Core on PSP and it's actually pretty darn good, although it has a couple of its own quirks. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I had heard that Sydney City Council was no longer providing bottled water at meetings and functions, but I didn't know about this other town. There are a couple of things I'd just add to this. Firstly, the town in question is one I've never even heard of - I'm not sure how big it is, but I'd guess it's fairly small. My inherent feeling is that it would be difficult for one town to actually ban a product - unless, of course, the town is so remote that it doesn't have many direct neighbours. I'm guessing this is the case with the town in question. Secondly, the debate about bottled versus tap water is fundamentally different in Australia, where the quality of our tap water is of a very high standard. In fact, in most places, the quality of tap water is [i]better[/i] than what you'd get in a bottle. So for us, the question of water quality isn't so much a factor (and it's probably even less of a factor in NZ, which I believe has the world's highest quality tap water). Basically I have no problem with Clover Moore banning bottled water for her staff in Sydney (CM is the Lord Mayor of Sydney). After all, it's expensive... and I don't see why they can't just pour a glass of water from the tap. But banning it outright for private citizens? I don't know. It certainly wouldn't work in a non-rural area because you could just go one suburb over to get bottled water. I guess if one town somewhere in a rural area decides that they don't want it anymore, that's fine. I'd probably suggest though that rather than banning it, people can just stop buying it.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]At the moment I'm playing Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Although it had positive reviews I was sort of expecting a FFVII cash-in. This game has really surprised me though - it's incredibly well directed, the story so far is decent and the battle system is rather cool (save for the slightly weird DMW thing). Definitely a must for anyone who enjoyed FFVII (or who enjoys RPGs in general really - admittedly this one has more in common with FFXII than something like FFVII itself though).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think we were supposed to be waiting for someone to post...but that just hasn't happened. My suggestion is that we just move on and establish a new Landmark. The story does need a bit of guidance at this point I think. I think I have to post about us going to the fashion show... I did have a post that I was working on, but it just isn't working. I may have to dump it entirely and start fresh.[/font]

[quote name='Mykul']Vicky, if I ever run into you on a dark and deserted street, please don't be offended when I flee for my life.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Really? I'd probably ask her how she got her hair to sit like that. If my hair were longer I know I'd have a lot of trouble. Reminds me of a Manson concert in '07 when some guy's mohawk was falling down and an entire team of people (who had brought hairspray with them) couldn't fix it! It sucked, because the mohawk was pretty impressive. Speaking of which, Vicky, are those Manson pants? One of the images gives that impression but I'm not sure.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, I played a mission with Boo last night upon first arriving at the Jade Sea. That was fun - and sorry Boo for my internet being so crappy! I swear it likes to play up at just the wrong moment. Still it was fun and it was great to be playing the game with a fellow OBer. I've only got one character in Factions now and she's only just arrived at the Jade Sea as I mentioned above - frankly it took some effort, because I find the early portion of Factions to be incredibly monotonous. I've had a [i]lot[/i] more fun progressing in Nightfall. Something about much of the early scenery in Factions just bores the hell out of me (well, after the starter island anyway). In any case, I'm definitely back into GW in a big way. I don't get the chance to play other than the weekends generally, but when I do it's been great fun. Even after years of playing, there's still a ton of stuff I just don't know - I've been reading up a fair bit on the Guild Wars Wiki to fill in the gaps. I guess over all this time I've really just been a casual player. It's amazing how fast some of the hardcore players advance. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Wow, great to see so many new members. Welcome aboard, guys! If you ever need anything, just send a private message my way. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I am pretty upset about this news. While MJ was definitely unusual, I don't think he was unusual in a sinister way. He was definitely a musical genius and a big part of our culture. He was also a big part of my childhood (and my parents' childhood too!) Definitely a tragic end to what was a pretty tragic life.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] The fact that they've appointed such a position, which I will henceforth refer to as "Massuh" means that the original bailout money had no specific requirements for usage attached to it. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Wait, what? The fact that they've now appointed someone to monitor the way Government funds are spent automatically means that there were no conditions on previous Government grants and loans? I think you're drawing a long bow there.[/font] [quote]Anyway, I find that I'm leaning more towards we should have just let them go bankrupt every time I read stuff on how they use tax money for parties and personal use of company jets.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]While I understand this feeling - and generally I agree with it - I think there's an important point to make here. If companies like GM are simply allowed to fail, the executives and senior management aren't the ones who suffer - it's the thousands of workers at the bottom and their families. Not to mention the fact that a company like GM doesn't fail in isolation. There are literally thousands of businesses of all sizes that rely on trade with GM (suppliers). If a company like GM totally collapses, it only sits at the center of a bigger problem - it draws thousands of companies (and by extension, their thousands of employees) into the void. This is true even if those suppliers are running [i]good[/i] businesses and not making stupid mistakes. Having said all of that, I certainly don't agree with the general principle that Government is responsible for bailing out all private business. And, in fact, even if I were to support a bail out, it would be with very strict conditions and only in a minority of cases. But part of the reason I mention those issues with GM is because a lot of people (in general) don't understand how the economy works. They think it's a simple matter of allowing a business to fail, without having any grasp of the broader economic implications. So my feeling is that bailouts are generally not some wholesale thing where someone can say "all bailouts are bad" or "all bailouts are good". It depends entirely on the individual situation. I mean, some people scoff at the idea of having a Government-appointed person to monitor executive remuneration, as if this is somehow indicative of Communism (or some other silly, ignorant argument). However, I'm sure that those people who are in favor of Government efficiency want to ensure that if you're receiving tax payer's money... you [i]aren't[/i] just throwing it away on ridiculous bonuses or perks that have nothing to do with business restructuring. I find it interesting that some people who are constantly in favor of spending control and restraint for Governments themselves won't apply that same restraint to a private enterprise when it is the recipient of public funds. Anyway, a few tangents in there... but those are my general thoughts on what I've been reading about the recent bailouts.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Allow me to reiterate the thread title. He doesn't know anything about cars. He doesn't know anything about the car business. He might know how to structure and work on a telecommunications business to make it successful. Does he have the right instincts that'll lead him to make informed and intelligent decisions about which cars will be attractive to the consumer or will he listen to a few dozen advisers and then give permission for cars to be produced by committee?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Refer back to my original point though - he doesn't need to know the nitty gritty about the car business in order to be GM's Chairman. He will learn what he needs to learn, but the vast majority of his efforts will involve strategic decisions. This is how large corporations operate. Of course it helps if a Chairman has direct experience in that field, but it is [i]more[/i] valuable to have a Chairman who has a strong general business knowledge. His role will not be to deal with the specifics of "what cars GM produces" as such. His role will likely be even broader - for instance, he'd be more likely to say "We need to restructure our employment agreements" or he'll be looking at how the business can gain efficiencies, or he'll be investigating where the company is at with its engine research (i.e. to look at feasibility of moving to hybrid or whatever else). In other words, the majority of his role will involve business functions rather than anything to do with automotive design. He might make suggestions on how to decrease production costs or improve distribution networks - but again, this doesn't imply some kind of front line management. In some ways his lack of involvement with the automotive sector could be of benefit, because he will look on the situation with fresh eyes. In other words, he won't be ideologically shackled by car industry "norms". As for Government ownership of GM... once again, I don't really know the details so it's hard to comment. However if GM is a public company with shares, then of course Government can purchase those shares. There will be specific acts governing the limitations and rules surrounding this. Fundamentally you must also make the distinction between Government "owned" and Government "run". I would suggest that most of GM's management will remain in place or be replaced by outside candidates. But any implication that you have Government bureaucrats sitting in management roles is a bit far-fetched.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Mr. Whitacre is absolutely correct in what he has said. You will find that in many industries - especially with very large companies - the Chairman often comes in without a huge amount of experience in the relevant field. A Chairman is [i]not[/i] an operational manager - he (or she) is a strategic manager. He will learn what he has to learn about the specifics of the industry, but generally he won't be dealing with specifics. Instead he'll be taking advice from multiple experts and making longterm strategic decisions that guide the business. In terms of Government intervention, I really don't know the specifics of what's happening. I have not read into what the Government bail-out actually involves.[/font]

[quote name='SachiroUchiha']I live in Australia... It all depends where you are! I mean, the eastern states with Movieworld and all those theme parks are crazy. But if you live on the other side of Australia, such as Perth (like me) it's not so common. I've been to a few theme parks, and some of the rollercoasters are practically lethal, but most of them are really... not scary. Like, not scream-worthy at all. It's not that common i guess but it all depends where abouts in Australia you are.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I live in Melbourne, so I'm relatively near the major theme parks (at least compared to Perth!) I'd still say we have very few rollercoasters, especially considering how many theme parks in Australia have closed (do you remember Wonderland in Sydney? It was probably bigger than Movieworld). And quite a few Victorian theme parks have closed down as well, sadly. Warner Village (who owns Movieworld) were looking at buying the Werribee Open Range Zoo and building a massive African-themed park there. It'd be a bit like Seaworld, where you've got animals as well as rides and other attractions. But there was quite a backlash against it (unfortunately) and it never went ahead.[/font]

[quote name='John']I think most people would kill one to save a thousand, and I think that's what this killer's rationale was. I have little doubt his actions were also fueled by hate (whether he'd admit it to himself or not), but that doesn't mean he was hypocritical in his stance on killing.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, true. But this still illustrates my point - people on the extreme end of the argument tend to say that killing isn't right under any circumstances (i.e. in reference to whatever the mother may have experienced). Yet it's perfectly okay for them to have exceptions to the rule - if you "kill one to save a thousand", it's considered reasonable. It reminds me of extreme green groups who consider themselves pacifists, yet are often willing to commit acts of terrorism to further their agenda. Because they might be able to "save thousands" by committing acts of violence or sabotage or whatever, they feel that their actions are justified. In the pursuit of their end goal, they lose sight of their own "ideals". In doing so, they become worse than their perceived enemy, I think.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's very sad to hear about David Carradine. It's always sad when someone you admire and respect passes away. I'm not sure I really understand the comparisions to Heath Ledger though. Surely the deaths of both men are tragic - does the weight of one resume make the other life less valuable? I don't think so. As far as [i]how[/i] he died, I can't say that I particularly care (and frankly I feel that it's none of my business anyway). It is just a shame that if he has died in an "embarassing" way, this will be the final memory of him that people carry with them. That in itself is disappointing.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome guys! Always great to see some new faces around. Sorry for being so slow to jump in and say hello. :catgirl: If you have any questions please feel free to PM me or to click the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page. I'm happy to help you with anything you need. You can also use the Suggestions & Feedback forum to request help or to take a look at other topics as well. Hope you enjoy yourselves![/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I still haven't read up on everything (will catch up with that this weekend), but there's a ton of stuff I'm interested in on all platforms. I am mostly glad that the Nintendo conference was a whole lot better than last year. There's now a pretty decent stream of third party exclusives coming down the line (I'm dying to play the new Silent Hill on Wii - talk about impressive!) And I'm really pleased to see New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario Galaxy 2. Going back to MotionPlus for a moment as well, I would recommend looking at the E3 conference demo of WiiSports Resort. I guess it's really [i]the[/i] game to demonstrate that attachment. I'm interested to see that Team Ninja is working on the new Metroid as well. Weird.[/font]