>> ^gtjwkq:
This congressman is a deluded imbecile, I wanna' bash the anchorman's head for buying into his overhead bullshit and not doing his homework. Medicare's overhead is smaller in overall percentage terms because it wastes a lot more money, that makes the overhead costs smaller in comparison to the total costs which are enormous: They are servicing the elderly!
Not to mention what is wasted on high levels of fraud and abuse, that's not being counted as overhead for Medicare's numbers. Private insurers, on the other hand, waste money fighting against fraud and abuse, and that counts as overhead! Private insurances also have to pay state health insurance taxes of 2-4%, which, you guessed it, counts as overhead, and Medicare doesn't.
It's all bureaucrats fooling around with statistical hedonics. If you compare on a per-person basis, Medicare wastes 25% on overhead, dramatically less efficient than private insurance.

This congressman is a deluded imbecile, I wanna' bash the anchorman's head for buying into his overhead bullshit and not doing his homework. Medicare's overhead is smaller in overall *percentage* terms because it wastes a lot more money, that makes the overhead costs smaller in comparison to the total costs which are enormous: They are servicing the elderly!

Not to mention what is wasted on high levels of fraud and abuse, that's not being counted as overhead for Medicare's numbers. Private insurers, on the other hand, waste money fighting against fraud and abuse, and that counts as overhead! Private insurances also have to pay state health insurance taxes of 2-4%, which, you guessed it, counts as overhead, and Medicare doesn't.

It's all bureaucrats fooling around with statistical hedonics. If you compare on a per-person basis, Medicare wastes 25% on overhead, dramatically less efficient than private insurance.

Wow! Anchorman was closer to the mark than we thought!!!

That's a dude who just doesn't give a shit anymore.

Upvote for the Anchorman reference.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ron, Burgundy, Anchorman, Glass, Cage, Emotion' to 'Ron, Burgundy, Anchorman, Glass, Cage, Emotion, will ferrel, paul rudd' - edited by gwiz665

>> ^gwiz665:
>> ^Eklek:
In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..

If anchorman taught me anything, and it did, then it's that things can escalate really fast. We need to be careful not to just ban left and right if two parties get each other riled up into a frenzy. However, this was not just a crime of passion. It was very deliberate, as berticus' own comment indicated. Therefore I don't think he should get a wag of the finger, but rather a slap on the wrist. The rules were knowingly broken several times (or several places in one spree). And he acted out of spite towards a single user. I think the 2 week suspension is warranted.
I don't expect to see any of this from him again, since it was clearly directed at another user who is not here anymore, but that is not a good reason to be lenient. "I won't kill my mother-in-law twice" won't get you out of jail.
In theory I'm for at much clearer ruleset too, but in practice I think it will invite certain users to "play the system" and ride out a yellow card, and get another yellow card afterwards, such the the user could calculate when he could make a minor infraction again - it's a bad solution to keep the cards hanging forever, but it's also a bad solution to let them be removed over time. This is why I think the fact that our rules are open to a bit of interpretation is in order, because we are a reasonable community (and have reasonable admins), we can decide when a user is deliberately breaking the system, like cp420 was, and when we should be lenient (like the schamwy incident should have been). If we make the rules too precise, then we invite way to many rules lawyers, who will want to impose the rules over the will of the community and admins, and this is a bad thing™. We must have some wiggle room, because we are dealing with people, not machines.


Thanks for your reply:)
As I mentioned this particular incident had a clear history, for all of us to see (sifttalk, comments)..it indeed escalated quickly but what happened can not be called surprising..

I think a sort of yellow card indication would generally make users more careful, they know if they do not play by the rules they will be (temporarily) banned and other users know he user has not played by the rules...like in sports the yellow card is for a certain period of time and what concerns a yellow card offense would be considered case-by-case by the community (jury)/admins.
One could also add a section in the user profile where offenses are documented (just like they do with sports people or e.g. at ebay (customer satisfaction rating)).
I think a little bit more complexity/rules will improve user behaviour..free speech/behaviour has a certain limit.

>> ^Eklek:
In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..


If anchorman taught me anything, and it did, then it's that things can escalate really fast. We need to be careful not to just ban left and right if two parties get each other riled up into a frenzy. However, this was not just a crime of passion. It was very deliberate, as berticus' own comment indicated. Therefore I don't think he should get a wag of the finger, but rather a slap on the wrist. The rules were knowingly broken several times (or several places in one spree). And he acted out of spite towards a single user. I think the 2 week suspension is warranted.

I don't expect to see any of this from him again, since it was clearly directed at another user who is not here anymore, but that is not a good reason to be lenient. "I won't kill my mother-in-law twice" won't get you out of jail.

In theory I'm for at much clearer ruleset too, but in practice I think it will invite certain users to "play the system" and ride out a yellow card, and get another yellow card afterwards, such the the user could calculate when he could make a minor infraction again - it's a bad solution to keep the cards hanging forever, but it's also a bad solution to let them be removed over time. This is why I think the fact that our rules are open to a bit of interpretation is in order, because we are a reasonable community (and have reasonable admins), we can decide when a user is deliberately breaking the system, like cp420 was, and when we should be lenient (like the schamwy incident should have been). If we make the rules too precise, then we invite way to many rules lawyers, who will want to impose the rules over the will of the community and admins, and this is a bad thing™. We must have some wiggle room, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

Anchorman. *Best. Movie. Ever.



* might vary from person to person

>> ^rychan:
>> ^brycewi19:
I love lamp.
I love lamp.

That's already in the description! You can't quote the description!


he was obviously quoting the part after Ron questions whether he 'really loves the lamp', while Laekroth was quoting from before that questioning.

>> ^brycewi19:
I love lamp.
I love lamp.


That's already in the description! You can't quote the description!

>> ^boblobblaw:
Kudlow reminds me of Phil Hartman.


I couldn't stop thinking that! Is this the guy that Phil Hartman modeled for his "anchorman" persona, or was it the other way around?

dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Anchorman-showdown

*discard

>> ^shuac:
"Yeah? Well, you're about to be in...dead place!"
Or is this a dupe?


I considered that, but the only thing similar I could find was this one, and it only shows a few seconds of the fight.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Will's career has gone the same direction as your "not another cat fart video" since he made Anchorman. Talladega nights was good, bet but since then, he's played the same character. On second thought, he's played the same character in every movie he's ever done.


I liked Stranger than Fiction and think the character is different(er).

Will's career has gone the same direction as your "not another cat fart video" since he made Anchorman. Talladega nights was good, bet but since then, he's played the same character. On second thought, he's played the same character in every movie he's ever done.