>> ^TheFreak:
Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.


What the fuck is wrong with you? I'd really like to see you maintain this sentiment if you were that fucking sick.

Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!

Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.

^He has a $100,000 student loan. Maybe go to a slightly cheaper college if you can't afford health insurance? I had private health insurance in college...it was $150 a month if I recall. You can make $1800 in one summer working at burger king so I don't wanna hear any bullshit excuses about a 23 year old not being able to afford health insurance. A lot of people who can't afford college work for a couple years, then go to school, and vice versa. Some work during the year and some work during the summer. The article said this sleazy piece of shit had "zero income" so he obviously wasn't too hard off....with his $100,000 loan and $120,000 in charity. He had a choice, he just chose to take the risk and ended up weaseling his way out of the consequences.

If you are that poor, go to fucking community college instead of groveling for your life because you can't pay your cancer bills.

The only thing that makes me feel better is the 4th hit for "freddie effinger email" on google turns up this thread with my comment "i hope his cancer returns" in the description.

Seriously, let me know if someone finds his contact info.

Effinger, then 23, didn't have insurance. His parents' policy dropped him after college, and he had figured he could coast through three years of law school and land a job with benefits before suffering any catastrophic illness or injury.

What do you think happens when you gamble with your life? You die or you are lucky enough and some nice doctor operates on you for free.

Why don't we hear about the student who skipped law school and accepted a full-time job with benefits out of college so they wouldn't have spend three years uninsured and risk a costly terminal cancer? Instead you want me to feel sorry about the cocky asshole who gambled with his life and then let some kind stranger pay off the $120,000 result of his bad wager for him?

Thats the whole purpose of insurance...to protect people who don't want to gamble with their lives. This greedy prick is going to lawschool, and you are telling me he can't afford a $200 monthly payment for health insurance? Get a job or take out a loan to pay for coverage and stop bitching about it when your stupid uninsured ass gets cancer.

Should have let him die on the street, he'll probably grow up to be the type of sleazy ass capitalist all of you are always complaining about. When he gets that fancy lawyer job he risked his life for, making $100,000 a year, do you think hes going to donate $120,000 to the hospital to help pay for charity cases for people who can't afford it? Fuck no.

Who here doesn't know someone with cancer, someone who has died from cancer, or someone who can't afford to pay for it, or is struggling to pay for it?

I know at least a dozen off the top of my head so tell me why then should have to pay to live, when this sleazy fuck thinks he can skip on the health insurance and then "beg for his life?" As if a hospital or agency would really turn someone like that down. Most people just aren't assholes and take responsibility and pay their bills, or else the whole system would come crashing down with a bunch of greedy fuckers who don't have insurance begging for charity.

The new health care plan, spend $100,000 on tuition but neglect to get $200 health insurance and then beg for free chemotherapy when your stupid ass gets cancer! Coming soon to all 300 million americans!

Did they leave a contact address for donations? I want to send him an email telling him I hope his cancer returns.

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Why are you assuming that I only feel this way about the government? I feel the exact same way about the criminally wealthy. Enron executives who steal money are no less sleazy than government officials who do the same.

I'm speaking out against the government, for one, because many people think their actions are sanctioned (whereas most already agree that the criminally wealthy's actions are not sanctioned). For two, I'm a lot more concerned with the government because they don't steal money by clever fraud schemes, or taking advantage of the under-informed, or backhanded actions - they walk in the front door with gun in hand and steal right in front of your face. Resistance is not an option, because the amount of violence is overwhelming.

To me, that is infinitely more scary. When I sleep at night, I don't fear a banker coming up with an elaborate fraud scheme to steal my savings, I fear someone kicking down my front door and robbing me at gunpoint. Knowing that they might have a "search warrant" doesn't help me sleep any better.

As Farhad2000 mentioned, 1/3 of every dollar in private healthcare ends up in the hands of someone who is gaming the system, and I believe it. They steal because they don't think we are equal, that they are entitled to the fruits of our labor because we are somehow different, below them. Private, non-governmental people who are rotten criminals, who managed to get in the position of stealing 30 cents of every healthcare dollar by lobbying rotten criminals in the legislature. They are, in effect, not only gaming us, but those in government as well - because their share is much larger than the bribes and lobby dollars the government officials receive.

What scares me, is you see this situation where private criminals are stealing billions of dollars, an undeniable situation; and what you propose is to replace these private criminals with public criminals. Public officials who are in an even easier position to steal billions of dollars, who have a vastly larger amount of physical violence at their disposal.

That is scary, and I don't think it solves anything.

In Mexico, the government decided to combat drug smuggling by clamping down on the borders and arresting leaders in the crime syndicate. The result? A violent power vacuum which resulted in ritualistic revenge killings, mass-beheadings, and the assassinations of several public figures. Then, when they couldn't earn money through smuggling, they turned to kidnapping. Instead of clandestine smuggling, the public now has to cope with over 500 kidnappings a month - many in broad daylight - where 1 in 7 kidnap victims are murdered. These types of people don't just quit, they find new ways to steal.

You create a power vacuum in the healthcare industry and what do you think is gonna happen, these criminals who have been stealing billions of dollars are just gonna retire, or better yet, go to college and decide to pursue a legitimate line of work? Get a degree and go to some job interviews? Give up a life stealing billions a year for 60 hours a week slaving in the ER? No, they will probably just run for office.

These people will never work for a living because they don't think we are equal.

>> ^Shpydir:
>> ^Shepppard:
I don't like the concept of "Project D"
My generation is basically one of the last to realize the gap between where we've come from, and where we're going. Being born in 89, I grew up with PSX, N64, genesis, ect. but we all knew about the previous consoles, and knew about where it came from.
Kid, I don't mean to sound like a cranky old fart and I kinda see what you're saying, but if you missed the 80's, you don't even know. There were these places called Ar-cades that we used to go to. They were just these whole rooms full of games. You put a token in and then you got to play the game for a bit.
It was nuts.


Well, to be fair, the arcade scene persisted very much into the 90's. Street Fighter 2 was not released until 1991, for instance. In Japan video arcades are still popular. But if you were born in 1989 in the US then you definitely missed a big part of gaming history. I was born in 1981 and I still too young to experience the real start of a gaming culture. I don't know when exactly that was, but Pac Man was released in 1980. Pong was back in 1972 so some old farts could claim that to understand the history of gaming you would need to be alive back then, but I'm skeptical of that.

I played the Atari but I never really liked it. It wasn't until the Nintendo with games like Final Fantasy (1990) that I was drawn into gaming. PC games like King's Quest, Hero's Quest, Sim City (1990), Civilization (1991), and Doom (1993) played just as big a role.

Having spent a fair amount of time hanging out in arcades, I can safely say that I don't miss it at all. I find the idea kind of sleazy, actually -- make children give up their money as fast and reliably as possible, in an environment with minimal parental supervision. PC or console games are so much better because they're not trying to quickly kill you so that you need to put in another quarter. They also have persistence, so you can build your character over many sessions. I've seen some clever Japanese arcade games that accomplish this by synergizing with RFID enabled collectible card games, though.

With the guy behind the camera and the questions posed, it felt very sleazy... basically this was just porn without the sex.

No vote

Transcribed for your reading pleasure (or torture):

The The Impotence of Proofreading

Has this ever happened to you? You work very, very hoard on a paper for English clash and still get a very glow grade on it like a D or even a D= and all because you are the liverwurst spoiler in the whale wide word. Yes, proofreading your peppers is a matter of the the utmost impotence.

Now, this is a problem that affects manly, manly students all over the word. I, myself, was such a bed spiller once upon a term that my English torturer in my sophomoric year, Mrs. Myth, she said that I was never gonna get into a good colleague. And that's all I wanted. That's all any kid wants at that age, just to get into a good colleague. And not just anal community colleague either because I am not the kind of guy who would be happy at just anal community colleague. I knead to be challenged, challenged menstrually. I knead a place that can offer me intellectual simulation.

So, I no this probably makes me sound like a stereo, but I really felt that I could get into an ivory legal colleague. So, if I did knot improvement than gone wood bee my dream of going to Harvard, jail, prison-- you know, in prison, New Jersey. So, I got myself a spell checker and I figured I was awn sleazy street, butt there are several missed aches that a spell checker can't can't catch catch.

For instant, if you accidentally leave out word, you're spell checker won't put it in you. And god for billing purposes only you should have serial problems with Tori Spelling, your spell check off may end up using a word that you had absolutely no detention of using because, I mean, what do you want it to douche? Ya' know-- No... It only does what you tell it two douche. You're the one sitting in front of the computer scream with your hand on the mouth going, "Clit. Clit. Clit."

Just goes to show you how embargo one little clit of the mouth can bee, witch reminds me of this won thyme during my Junior Mint. The teacher took the paper that eye had written on a Sale of Two Titties-- No, I'm serial! I'm serial-- She read it out loud in front of all of my ass mates. It was quite possibly one of the most humidifying experiences I have ever had being laughed at like that pubicly.

So, do yourself a flavor and follow these two Pisces of advice: 1) There is know prostitute four careful editing of your own work, no prostitute whatsoever; and 2hree) When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend. Spank you.

*upvote for the slow-mo blurry sleazy boob shot

Well, you'd have to be pretty sleazy to pull a stunt like that, plus that type of abuse is very noticeable and can be dealt with.

That said, I think this is a pretty good idea, though there's already the problem of there sometimes being way too many promotes on the front page, and this'll just make that worse.

Hello?!? You don't need to "search" for a birth certificate. It is not some magic original document proving anything. YOu can just go to the town clerk or whatever and get a copy.

FYI, the Supreme Court threw out Sleazy-Lawyer-Man's lawsuit over Obama's natural born status for standing.

Obama clearly is Natural Born, he was born in Hawaii

The only possibility is that they can prove that Obama was born in Kenya and they faked his birth certificate. Short of that it will never be an issue, because the govt and hospital have Obama on record being born in Hawaii.

The idiot lawyer on YouTube is a complete attention whore. He sued Bush over 9/11. He is a fake scoundrel that has more discipline actions against him for being the world's most sleazy lawyer.

Besides, do you think the GOP have some proof on the birth certificate front and they are just waiting until the last moment to spring it?

Technically, I believe if Obama was elected and proven to be non-natural born, then Biden would become President. Or the senate votes to appoint someone.

>> ^Lumm:
>> ^thepinky:
Give me a break, you guys. Obama pulled the same stuff on McCain. Remember that Spanish language ad that slandered Rush Limbaugh, took his words out of context, and tied him to John McCain? The ad makes a pitiful attempt to make McCain seem like a bigot, when we all know that he is not. That's hate-mongering if I've ever seen it. There are others but I'm going to take a nap instead of finding them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkzvFAOcw6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLa5EeLNUSk
And here's Bill slamming both of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S417X0RsHks
I don't love O'Reilly or McCain or Limbaugh, I'm just pointing out that Obama has gotten his hands just as dirty as McCain. Ugh. I hate these presidential candidates more than any others I've seen in my lifetime.

Here's the "context" from Mr. Limbaugh himself:
"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Actually, that still sounds pretty bigoted to me. Quote is from Limbaugh's Wall Street Journal piece:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178554189155003.html


Even though I'm right, your comment got a vote and mine got downvoted. It's almost laughable.

Speaking of taking things out of context, did you read the paragraph after the one that you quoted? He says:

"My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents."

This time go back and read the entire article and not just the parts that will help you win your argument, m'kay?

Why can't you just admit that Obama's ad was sleazy and stupid? I can admit that McCain's ads have been. OPEN YOUR MIND.

>> ^gorillaman:
You don't need an explicit conspiracy if you have a general understanding that each individual will do whatever they can to ensure the desired result. No one will come forward to expose it, since they could only ever reveal their own crimes.

^ ^ ^ THIS.
Well said. I think that is the best explanation. You only need one really bad sleazy person in half of the counties all working on adding a margin of 3% or so for Bush. They all came up with different ways to do it, and maybe a few people higher up were involved in some suggestions, but there is no "conspiracy" if you can't link up conspirators.