I think that's more wtf than funny.

 

You know what would be more wtf? If this gif started with this scene, people would laugh seeing this and then it would be the same scene, but with reversed roles and everyone would feel stupid about themselves.

 

No the difference if the roles were reversed and the guy was the one walking by listening to music would be a group of very angry policemen dive tackling the poor bastard instead of a few chuckles over how zany the girl is.

 

You can just use reddit. It often has links to context, similar work, the original author, etc.

 

That's me when I go on vacation and can't get a good, stable, internet connection. Like right now.

 

Having the same issues.

 

I walked around Manhattan for over five hours and went to museums, I only got on here to get away from the heat

 

Yeah, its pretty hot here right now for sure.

 

My country is full of idiots...

 

I suddenly want to see a scene like this between Sirius and Mrs Weasley. Or Snape. Or any character with potentially hilarious reactions.

 

I will admit to being confused with the Obama care posts. Because there is a distinct difference between the government telling you "you must buy private healthcare from an entity out to make business." and "Universal Government subsidized healthcare"

 

Exactly. It's more socialized than Obamacare. Socialism being the great American boogeyman these days, I found it hilarious.

 

It's hilarious.


That said I did see someone theroize that the reason why people fear Socialism is because there are still people around that lived through the Cold War where Socialism = Communism = EVIL and ANTI-AMERICAN!

Course that is withstands that fact that the Soviet Union has since imploded and that many "Western" countries now have socialized medicine and they seem to be doing fine.

Hell our Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid can be already seen as a form of socialism.

 

Well, I don't know if socialism is the great American boogeyman or any other nonsense like that (not that it being a boogeyman is nonsense, but rather that anyone could attempt to seriously position an opposing political ideal as something that is supposed to be terrifying, as opposed to undesirable) but I personally dislike it when the government tells me to do partake in any service it does not offer. In this case especially, because the law is telling me that I must buy a plan from a private entity whose main goal is to make money, not keep me healthy. If I had to choose between those two, is rather have socialized medicine than be forced to buy from a private company who has no vested interest in me.

Either give me freedom or don't, and try not to hide behind a smokescreen while you do it. My government should not be trying to give me the run around or confuse me. Is it legally required for me to have it? You better offer it to me then, otherwise I find you tyrannical. The same ideal applies in my mind to any other public service. I know it will not be free, nothing in life is and I don't expect it to be, but that is why I pay taxes, so the government has money to spend.

I don't want to rant here about it, but I think my views are pretty clear. If this same situation was applied to education, this wouldn't be worth discussing how ridiculous it is.

 

The point is that the mandate is necessary once you say pre-existing conditions have to be covered.

If you passed a law saying pre-existing conditions must be covered, but no mandate to buy insurance, then people would only buy insurance when they got ill. That would obviously bankrupt the insurance industry, which would mean no healthcare for anyone except those who could pay in cash.

So you need the mandate to make sure people still use insurance correctly and not just as something they buy when they get ill. But forcing people to buy something is anti-American, so you have the system of either buying insurance or paying a fine, which basically means you're paying the same either way, but technically means you still have a choice.

You have a legitimate concern with regards to the private sector insurance companies profiteering off the individual mandate. That's why the Affordable Care Act also includes new requirements limiting the amount of profit insurance companies can make. From 2014 onwards, there's only a certain percentage of their revenues that can be profit. The rest they have to spend on actual healthcare provision. If they don't, they get fired.

Also, there are very few countries with true socialised medicine. Many of the European countries touted as having socialised medicine, like France and Norway, don't have it. They have compulsory insurance, like the US is heading towards. UK and Canada are unusual in having the state actually provide the care.

/should be in Politics forum.