Originally posted by syllvenwood

i am wondering how this was a good article, it doesnt make any sense. It trys to say that we are wrong to say that F2P games are more prevalant in the east then goes on to name 6 korean F2P games as an example. Then goes on to talk about how people choose game shere and in germany which from what the article starts off about has nothing to do with it. The micro transaction MMO market was pratically invented in the eastern market and has been the major staple of all MMOs for over a decade. Its a factual statement that this form of mmo market is pretty much centered there because it Is, and its just recently began to spread out to Europe and the US as a growing market.

Uhm....yeah.  That's kind of what I thought when I read this.  How can you say f2p isn't bigger in the East?  That's pretty much an obvious no brainer to see if you just look at player numbers ALONE.  So I guess I don't "get" this article either.  /shrug

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

I've grown so sick of reading all this bullshit from you Fisher that I have now ONE thing left to say.....

If you don't like what's happening then do something to change it and shut the fuck up already.  Period.  You're not accomplishing a damn thing babbling on and on about it on a GAMING forum.  If you fancy yourself some sort of intellectual genius on the issue then run for office.  If we, as a collective people in the U.S. decide we think you have any ideas worth a damn, maybe we'll vote for you.  Then you can save the world (or not) in whatever fashion you CHOOSE.

 

I've been DOING things about it my entire life -- over the years I've been fairly active politically -- and now I am discussing it on a gaming forum. I happen to enjoy discussing things with my fellow gamers. I have no desire to run for anything -- I am doing exactly what I like to do -- share ideas with people, be challenged by people, hone my own positions on things by debating with others. All good to me. If you feel this is not a productive way to spend your time, by all means, follow thy bliss.

Either way, if you are sick of reading all this *childish expletive* from me, no one is forcing you to.

 

Actually, I think it's rather "childish" for a bunch of gamers to think they're somehow so politically and socially savvy that they have some sort of expertise with which to carry on said "discussions" and affect any sort of change.  I don't see anyone here proclaiming to have all the answers, but you, so when I say "bunch of gamers"....I guess really I just mean YOU.

You're absolutely correct, however, in the fact that no one is forcing me to read it.  Which I intend to cease immediately, as I don't need the frustration of reading this moronic crap every day on the gaming forums.  The only reason I've bothered with this thread at all is that I have put off canceling the automatic thread subscribe in my options, WHICH I will now do, so that my email isn't bombarded with your comments daily.

Furthermore, "bullshit" is not a "childish expletive when it refers to BULLSHIT (a word used to describe crap....as crap), which is predominantly what you're spewing around here, Mr. Know Everything.  For someone who professes Christianity, you're probably the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered, if I am to take any kind of indication from your ramblings about being "forced" to help other people.  You turned me off of your lifestyle immediately upon uttering that nonsense with such an atrocious lack of  humility or even much humanity.

And you wonder why no one listens to "Christians" any more? 

I've grown so sick of reading all this bullshit from you Fisher that I have now ONE thing left to say.....

If you don't like what's happening then do something to change it and shut the fuck up already.  Period.  You're not accomplishing a damn thing babbling on and on about it on a GAMING forum.  If you fancy yourself some sort of intellectual genius on the issue then run for office.  If we, as a collective people in the U.S. decide we think you have any ideas worth a damn, maybe we'll vote for you.  Then you can save the world (or not) in whatever fashion you CHOOSE.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.

I agree with you TOTALLY.  All sorts of people give.  But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of  ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need.  Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals.  I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself."  If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family.  I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!

Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does.  I agree.  Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either.  That's all I'm saying here. 

You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.

If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.

Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control.  Laws are for law abiding citizens.  You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period.  You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice.  But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.

Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns.  Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want.  So your solution is to abolish all laws?  Is that the idea?  See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice.  But you choice will have some sort of consequences.

When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions?  That's what I'd like to know.  Because the blame game is all you see any more.  What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices?  I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?"  And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.

If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome.  That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Life doesn't work that way.

Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!!  I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!"  No, that isn't what I'm saying.  There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice.  My son is a good example here.  He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart.  He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school.  He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it.  He had not MADE any "bad choices."  He was a victim of circumstance.

Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars.  He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we.  Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die?  For what?  He made no bad choices that warranted that. 

I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to use birth control...or not.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences.  Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things. 

If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.

Originally posted by grandpagamer

Originally posted by Samuraisword

What an odd question.

Simply put, EQ2 sucks, and it's also an SOE product.

 

Coming from someone promoting the failed game Darkfall i find that a pretty good endorsement. 

This made me laugh.  ^5

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by aeroplane22

I myself am not insured, I cannot afford it and neither can most of the people I know. The people that I know that are insured are the ones lucky enough to have their job provide a half-ass coverage system, everyone else.. fucked.

 

Are you sitting at a library typing this becuase you can't afford internet access? Have you bought a video game recently? Eaten fast food? Bought a beer?

People often can afford health insurance, but they dont' want to because it would mean an extremely frugal lifestyle. That's understandable. We all need some entertainment, like going to see a movie. But that's a choice, not really a situation where you can't afford it.

The problem is we all pay for your health care. If you get in an accident that is no one's fault, like you fall down some stairs, or something, then you go to the hospital, and the hospital by law has to treat you. They can't just let you die.

So, to make up for that they charge the people paying with health insurance more moeny, to make up the costs.

This bill is fair. It says, if you can afford it you're going to get health insurance, BEFORE you buy a video game, or coffee at Star Bucks, or whatever, otherwise you will get fined.

Prove you really, really, truly, honestly can't afford it, and there wil be no fine. You even stated taht in your original post.

Take your pick. Either we FORCE everyone to get health insurance, or, you cannot FORCE everyone to pay for you if you have an accident. But we know you're not going to change the law so the Hospitals can just let you die, that's ridiculous. That leaves only one option....

 

This is the most intelligent comment I have seen in this thread.  Thank god some people still have a little fracking common sense.

Originally posted by johnisme

I enjoy pvp when i choose to play it but if its forced on me to progress then i will choose another mmo,simple as that.

QFT (as far a my own personal preferences go).

I enjoy PvP when I'm in the mood to PvP.  Sometimes I'm just in the mood to craft without any interruptions....or farm mats, or quest, or hang out at the in game pub and "toss back a few" virtual drinks and chat.  For me, a game is only as good as the number of CHOICES it allows me to make.  End of story....for me.

Originally posted by Nifa

I'm confused.

Where in Fisher's post that was quoted to begin this little theological debate does it say "Christians," "the Church," or "Christianity?"  It's entirely possible that I missed it because I haven't yet finished my coffee, but I don't see it.  Also, how did the discussion go from a relatively political topic to a religious one?

Whether Fisher's, Geekgirl's, Endiku's or my opinion on a political matter stems from whatever faith we adhere to is completely irrelevant.  (Sorry, Geekgirl and Endiku: yours were the only other names I could remember from the posts in this thread.)

The topic at hand is whether or not one political group behaves in a manner that implies that one type of good or service currently in the private sector's domain is any different from any other type of good or service that is currently in the private sector's domain.

The fact that anyone posting their opinions here is of any faith: Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Taoist, or International United Association of Doorknob Worshippers has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it is my opinion that attacking anyone's opinion on the political issue at hand on the basis of their spiritual beliefs detracts completely from the topic.

Mahatma Ghandi said, "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."  But the same could be said of Muslims:  "I like your Allah.  I do not like your Muslims.  Your Muslims are so unlike your Allah.", Jews:  "I like your G-d.  I do not like your Israelites.  Your Israelites are so unlike your G-d.", Buddhists: "I like your Buddha...", Taoists:  "I like your Tao...", or even Athiests: "I like your atheism..." or doorknob worshippers:  "I like your doorknob..."

In point of fact, so few adherents to any particular faith are accurate representations of their object of worship that, to single any one group out is an exercise in either futility or stupidity (I can't decide which, to be honest).  But, if you want to get Biblical...in ancient Israel, the kingship (political leadership) and the priesthood (spiritual leadership) were kept entirely separate.  King Saul's prophet was Samuel; King David's was Nathan - and so on.  The kingship and the priesthood were kept separate - deliberately.  Here in the United States, we deliberately separate church (religious leadership) and state (political leadership) under our Constitution (and many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, sorry to burst anyone's bubble).

Since (Biblically speaking) God saw fit to separate faith and politics, it is my opinion that we would all do well to follow that example:  leave both religious advocacy and attacks out of political discussion.  In the words of Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent [flame wars]." ;P

First of all, I don't SEE a "flame war."  We're having a discussion here about "choosing" to give to others and help those in need or, as Fisher put it, being "forced" to pay taxes (and other HORRIBLE things) to help our fellow human beings.  Fisher brought up trusting "love" to take care of things.  Nice idea, but love, nor religion, nor politics can be completely trusted.

If people are given a "choice" of whether or not to help those in need....most would likely choose to only help their "own."  Like I said in the post right before this....some people don't EVEN help their own families.  Do we honestly think they would "choose" to contribute to help others in society???  Seriously.

And THAT is how "religion" got brought into the picture.  You'd have to go back and read the whole thread, which is a laborious and tedious task, but the topic of relgion(s) didn't just pop out of the woodwork.  It got brought in while discussing "charity," essentially.

Originally posted by Fishermage

This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.

I agree with you TOTALLY.  All sorts of people give.  But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of  ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need.  Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals.  I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself."  If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family.  I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!

Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does.  I agree.  Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either.  That's all I'm saying here. 

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage 

If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.

 

I do help people.  My life is dedicated to that end.

So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?

Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.

 

Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.

Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.

 

Right Fisher.  And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church"  (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society.  Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter.  Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him.  (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.)  Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does.  You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do.  (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")

Sounds like a lovely idea.  The problem is, it will never ever work that way.  You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.

 

That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.

No....I trust NEITHER.  Trusting love is foolish because you cannot determine what is in the heart of OTHER people.  You can't even truly know your OWN heart (the Bible says that the heart is deceitful).  Trusting "love" is trusting an ethereal emotion, choice, or idea that often doesn't even act in the best interests of those that it purports to "love."  Define love.  Try to define it.  You cannot.  Because it means something different to everyone who utters the word.  Most of mankind "loves" no one but themselves.  And your Christian definition of love doesn't even compel most Christians to act in loving ways, so how do you suppose that's going to work across a much broader spectrum?  It's not. (No offense to Christians, or to people of other faiths either.)

"Brute force," as you call it, is what attempts to keep society from eating itself WHOLE.  You're calling the law, or laws of the land, "brute force."  The Bible, by the way, says to obey the laws of the land.  You might want to look that one up.  The law  is what ATTEMPTS to keep criminals off the street and tries to guide millions of people in the right direction (because after all, dear sir, EVERYONE is not Christian, nor does EVERYONE even have a basic code of ethics and morals by which they live. There are people that actually have no definitive conscience to convict them of "right" and "wrong" at ALL). 

This way of the "law" can also not be trusted, because it lends to a hunger for power in politics, etc.

I know YOU think "love" can do this.  Your BRAND of love, i.e. "Christian" love, has had many centuries to "love this world into a better state."  It has failed.  Sure....ideally, "love is the answer."  The problem is.....the kind of "love" that you're talking about, doesn't exist in the general populace.  It doesn't even exist in a LOT of the "Church."  I think you have a very overly optimistic idea of the "good of humanity."  That is noble for you to think that way, but it is also unrealistic.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by SuperCrap

 

 
You sound like every other fascist in the world, congratulations.  Obviously the state should just run everything in society and give everyone everything they need when they need it [as long as they goose step in line with the other jungen, of course], then everyone will be happy and the world will be pixie dust and rainbows everywhere!  lol
 
If the US was still a free nation then it would be a moot point what the government did about health care, because people would be able to just take care of their own health care themselves.  Unfortunately, the way it is today you need permission from a government agent in order to receive any signifigant medical treatment in the United States.  This is why the emergency rooms are always full, because people have strep throat and can't just go buy an antibiotic at the pharmacy, they have to get permission from a government agent in order to buy medecine, and so if they are poor they have to go the the emergency room because it usually costs miniimum of $100 for a government agent's permission to buy medecine, in most places in the country it costs substantially more than that.  90% of the people in emergency rooms in the United States wouldn't be there if this were a free nation where people are allowed to buy medecine and treat their own health problems without government permission.  A substantial percentage of the people going for medical care just need a general antibiotic, that's all, they know that's what they need, but they have to go in and take up many medical professionals' time not to mention pay a substantial sum of money in order to purchase the permission to buy medecine.  More government intervention as a barrier between members of society and their medical treatment is an exacerbation of the problem, not a solution.
 
In a real socialized health care system, which I support in theory, nobody asks any questions you just use it when you need it.  It is like calling the police, you don't have to register with the police, you don't have pay a special police tax or be put in jail, you don't have to be a member of the local community or even a citizen, you just dial 9-1-1 and the police come help you, that is all.  That is how socialized medecine can work, but the US government is profoundly corrupt and incompetent, and there is no way they could effectively implement a major new government system like that. 
 
The whole concept of "fine everyone who doesn't buy insurance" is so stupid, and such an antithesis to what a good socialized healthcare system would look like, that it is the QED that this government should leave well enough alone.  If things keep going at the rate they are right now, a quick march down the road to fascism, there will be civil war in this country before Obama's term ends. I hope it doesn't happen, but there seem to be enough morons in the country who can't just leave their fellow man alone to live his life in peace that something as stupid as that is becoming forseeable.  It is not only black people in America who keep the song, "Before I'll be a slave I'll be buried in my grave," close to their hearts, it is the vast majority of all Americans.  One of defining features of American character is wanting to just be left the fuck alone!!!!
 
What happens when you owe the government money and you can't afford to pay?  I.E. the subject of this thread.  Here's a clue, sherlock: in the US it generally means you go to jail!  Don't forget this is the #1 prison country in the world with the highest prisoner count both per capita and gross of any of the world's nations.  Fascist scum, how many of us do you think you can lock up before the society disintegrates?  Oh sure, just create more government mandates, more restrictions, and more interference in everyone's lives, just create more barriers to access to medecine so that unlike in a third world country people can't even go buy an antibiotic if they can afford to, instead they must go begging a government agent for the charity to give them one [permission which always requires a hefty bribe, one way or another, or do you know any doctor that gives out prescriptions for free? lol  it will only get worse].

---

 

I didn't know telling you that people live in their cars because they lost their house from expensive medical bills was facist speak. I also have no idea who you are or why you are such an angry and hostile individual towards someone posting their opinion.

 

But you are certainly misinformed about emergency rooms in the United States and why they are full. Emergency rooms are full because people without health insurance usually put off visiting the doctor for what they see are small ailments because they cannot afford that visit. They live with whatever problem until its too late, then they are rushed to the emergency room where care is three times more expensive than a regular doctor's visit. If the people had free or even reduced healthcare, they could visit the doctor monthly and make sure that lump gets checked out or that blood pressure is monitored with drugs before the heart attack or stroke happens, causing emergency open heart surgury.

 

If there was free or socialized medicine in the United States, this wouldn't happen as often and wouldn't cost half as much to treat people as it does.

 

You keep focusing on the fine, but that's not the issue. The issue is getting everyone on health insurance. This bill just gives people incentive to do it so that their uninsured injuries don't stick private insurance owners with the tab.

 

When the government finally pays people's subsidies and has CHEAP health insurance for all people who accept it, the private companies and hospitals won't be able to sue or ask the government for help. So what will happen is someone like you as an uninsured person will go to a hospital with no insurance and skip on the bill because of your "freedoms". Then the hospital is stuck so who do you think that hospital will charge? Uncle Sam? Nope. The government will not pay for your bill because you didn't sign up. So now the hospital is still owed and they will up their cost and pass that onto the PRIVATE insurance people who now will pay higher premiums.

Right there in green.  Yes.  I tried to explain this earlier.  For some reason, this logic is beyond some of these people.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage 

If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.

 

I do help people.  My life is dedicated to that end.

So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?

Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.

 

Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.

Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.

Right Fisher.  And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church"  (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society.  Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter.  Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him.  (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.)  Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does.  You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do.  (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")

Sounds like a lovely idea.  The problem is, it will never ever work that way.  You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.

Originally posted by SuperCrap

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Zindaihas
For those who go to the hospital w/o insurance and are treated, they will have to pay out of pocket eventually.  If they don't, it's just like any other unpaid bill, it goes to collections and will affect the person's credit rating.

---

 

You ever heard of the expression "You can't get blood out of a stone?"

 

 

That means it's impossible to get money from someone who has no way of paying it. In that case you mentioned above that girlgeek eloquently commented on doesn't happen much. Lawyers are not the main problem with costs and hospitals. It's unpaid bills. 60% of all foreclosures that happen in the United States are due to unpaid medical bills.

 

- People get sick, they go into the hospital and can't work.

- They don't work, they don't get any money to pay the bills for their mortgage while in the hospital.

- They get treated and released, then they have no income, mortgage behind and now medical bills.

- The house gets taken and the bills stay while they move to a shelter, with a relative or in a car.

 

I hardly believe someone in this situation is thinking about their credit rating.

 

 

That bill isn't getting paid. Insurance stops a lot of this.

 

You sound like every other fascist in the world, congratulations.  Obviously the state should just run everything in society and give everyone everything they need when they need it [as long as they goose step in line with the other jungen, of course], then everyone will be happy and the world will be pixie dust and rainbows everywhere!  lol

 

If the US was still a free nation then it would be a moot point what the government did about health care, because people would be able to just take care of their own health care themselves.  Unfortunately, the way it is today you need permission from a government agent in order to receive any signifigant medical treatment in the United States.  This is why the emergency rooms are always full, because people have strep throat and can't just go buy an antibiotic at the pharmacy, they have to get permission from a government agent in order to buy medecine, and so if they are poor they have to go the the emergency room because it usually costs miniimum of $100 for a government agent's permission to buy medecine, in most places in the country it costs substantially more than that.  90% of the people in emergency rooms in the United States wouldn't be there if this were a free nation where people are allowed to buy medecine and treat their own health problems without government permission.  A substantial percentage of the people going for medical care just need a general antibiotic, that's all, they know that's what they need, but they have to go in and take up many medical professionals' time not to mention pay a substantial sum of money in order to purchase the permission to buy medecine.  More government intervention as a barrier between members of society and their medical treatment is an exacerbation of the problem, not a solution.

 

In a real socialized health care system, which I support in theory, nobody asks any questions you just use it when you need it.  It is like calling the police, you don't have to register with the police, you don't have pay a special police tax or be put in jail, you don't have to be a member of the local community or even a citizen, you just dial 9-1-1 and the police come help you, that is all.  That is how socialized medecine can work, but the US government is profoundly corrupt and incompetent, and there is no way they could effectively implement a major new government system like that. 

 

The whole concept of "fine everyone who doesn't buy insurance" is so stupid, and such an antithesis to what a good socialized healthcare system would look like, that it is the QED that this government should leave well enough alone.  If things keep going at the rate they are right now, a quick march down the road to fascism, there will be civil war in this country before Obama's term ends. I hope it doesn't happen, but there seem to be enough morons in the country who can't just leave their fellow man alone to live his life in peace that something as stupid as that is becoming forseeable.  It is not only black people in America who keep the song, "Before I'll be a slave I'll be buried in my grave," close to their hearts, it is the vast majority of all Americans.  One of defining features of American character is wanting to just be left the fuck alone!!!!

 

What happens when you owe the government money and you can't afford to pay?  I.E. the subject of this thread.  Here's a clue, sherlock: in the US it generally means you go to jail!  Don't forget this is the #1 prison country in the world with the highest prisoner count both per capita and gross of any of the world's nations.  Fascist scum, how many of us do you think you can lock up before the society disintegrates?  Oh sure, just create more government mandates, more restrictions, and more interference in everyone's lives, just create more barriers to access to medecine so that unlike in a third world country people can't even go buy an antibiotic if they can afford to, instead they must go begging a government agent for the charity to give them one [permission which always requires a hefty bribe, one way or another, or do you know any doctor that gives out prescriptions for free? lol  it will only get worse].

Some of what you said made sense.  Some of it, i.e. what I highlighted is delusional, at best.   Why?  Because  our society OVERALL is so irresponsible (sad, but true) that we can't even be left to buy COLD MEDICINE (Sudafed, or anything with pseudoephedrine) without SOME fucking moron somewhere turning it into methamphetamine which is poisoning a lot of this society that you think should just be broadly "trusted" to "take care of themselves."  Instead, they push speed on our kids.

Ideally....your ideas would be lovely, but they cannot WORK because we have a society that if rife with idiots and people that will ABUSE "medicines."  We cannot allow people to just purchase medicines over the counter.  You're making the assumption that everyone is "normal" and will do the things that are, not only right for them and their own families, but right for those around them.  The ripple effect of this would be, sadly, devastating.

You can't assume that just because something would work for you, or other people with half a brain, that it will work for people overall.  Yes, I know, I know....survival of the fittest.  Unfortunately, most good people don't want their childrens lives possibly thrown under the bus in support of evolution theory.  I don't WANT just anyone being allowed to purchase medications.  To me, that sounds like a plan that is equally tragic, in potential, to the rest of the hair-brained ideas we can all come up with.

There is NO EASY SOLUTION to this issue.   And while we brainiac gamers sit around debating everything that the government is doing wrong, perhaps if we find it so unappealing and threatening to our survival, we should be out trying to affect some CHANGES in it, and not bitching on a web game forum.  (Yes, I include myself in that reprimand.)

If you think you have ideas that are better than what is being discussed and acted upon by our ELECTED government officials (yes, elected by the very same people that you think can be trusted with more "freedom" to buy medicine), then you should do what you can to alert your state representatives and congressmen.   And if you don't think that would work (and you may be right)....maybe it's time to think about moving to another country where you have more "freedom" than we have here in the U.S.  Good luck.  The grass is always greener....etc. 

I understand why everyone is pissed, but let me ask you this, those of you that are medically uninsured....

What happens when you DO need a hospital?  Say you're in an accident....or....say you're diagnosed with a terrible disease and have to have treatment to live.  The hospitals cannot turn you away....they have to treat you.  So then what do you do when you GET that bill?  You don't pay it.  You toss it in the trash, because the medical bill is your LAST priority when you barely have enough money to pay all of your other bills.  THIS is the problem.

Because people do not PAY their medical bills, doctors and hospitals are charging more and more trying to recoup the expenses from those that DO pay and from the insurance of those that HAVE it.

Like I said, I understand your outrage. However....as a society, we've created this problem of rising medical costs, in part, ourselves.  If you don't pay the bills, because you cannot afford to....the costs skyrocket for others that can, or those that have insurance.

They did say that there would be subsidizing for people who cannot afford insurance and fall into certain low to middle income brackets.  Personally, I'll have to wait and see before making any judgement call on that.  However, I'm not QUITE as pissed as everyone else here seems to be, because I can see part of what CAUSED the problem to begin with.

And yes....I think the U.S. should have totally government funded healthcare like Canada does, but....somehow I doubt Canada (since they tend to stay out of wars and other countries business) has the national DEFICIT that we have. We're really GOOD in the U.S. at spending money we don't HAVE.  That's part of how we've gotten to where we are.  And guess what.....we live here......and we're going to have to, at SOME point, fix that deficit.  Yup....that probably means cough up some more of our hard earned dough.  Why?  Because it's been mismanaged in the past and now...someone has to pay for it.  Lucky us.  Something to remember in years to come if we ever DO get out of the red.....don't fucking spend money you DON'T HAVE. (This goes for individuals as WELL as countries.)

Originally posted by riceae02

LOL thats cool,  I too play WoW ... still.. as well as a slue of other games. You don't have to be defensive, fact of the matter is that more people like Wow than dislike it, they just don't come to forms to scream how much (too busy playing no doubt). Only the people who are burnt out on WoW hate it (Which means they loved it at one time too or how else would they know enough to evaluate it?... Hypocrits). And if they didn't try Wow and hate it, well then thats just  (insert  adjective here).

Btw I'm 49 years old, been gaming longer than some of these ppl been alive. I've played or tried just about everything most games never leave my wall of USB book drives.

I 'm currently back to playing CoX (cause the AE missions allow u to lvl to 50 in no time ... Shhh don't tell anyone) and BF2142 is what I use to get out aggression (I love beating the cheaters and ragging on them about how they got blazed by someone who is not cheating)

May try Free Realms but seems kiddie to me but will see.

Waiting on Everything. I will try them all, cause I rarely rely on anybody else's opinion when it comes to my entertainment.

Yup.....all of that. :)

Originally posted by Zeppelin4

Or you could do what my wife and I did......We bought Secrets of Faydwer for 5 dollars on Newegg and go back to EQ which gets updates and support. :)

Secrets of Faydwer?  Do you mean EQ2 or the original EQ?  Sorry....I'm just unclear which one you meant.

Originally posted by bleyzwun

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by bleyzwun

I have never given a damn about the story while in the game.  I have read about lore for Warcraft and Warhammer lore outside of the game.  The problem is the way the story is told in game.  I don't want to read all this text on a parchment for every quest I pick up.  I just want to get them and do them because if I read everything I will have wasted leveling time. 

Now if there were cut scenes and good voice acting instead of text, I could appreciate the story of the MMO.  At this point, though, I agree with the OP.  So far no dev has made an MMO where I actually want to read the quest.  I don't play games to read all day.  I can do that with books and most likely get a better experience out of it.  My problem is that we have the technology to have nice cut scenes (even with in-game graphics) and voice overs.  I'm sorry but running up to each quest giver to read a bunch of text is not fun. 

As long as the presentation of the stories are good, and not what we've been getting, I do give a crap about the story.  If it's text, then I could care less.  I have read some quests in MMOs, but for the most part I find what the objective is and do it.

 

/begin rant

And right THERE.....is why our MMOs are losing so much DEPTH.  The younger generation of gamers, (a) doesn't like to read, (b) doesn't really care much about story...they just want to KILL STUFF, and (c) is so fucking focused on LEVELING that the game may as well just give them a damn max level character to START with and blow off any gameplay that doesn't have to do with either killing NPCs or other players.

Why don't you people just go play an FPS?  That's the part of the game that matters most to you, after all.  Your primary focus is to get to max level so that you can kick ass and take names, and not much else really matters.

I think I would like to see an MMO made that requires age verification of being over the age of 40 to play, a desire for a deeply interwoven and engaging story, a love for reading, and some kind of test for patience, with an understanding of the cliche...."anything worth a squat is worth working for and worth waiting for."

/end rant

 

I didn't know I was in the younger generation.  I'm 28, almost 29...  You're over 40? That's great for you.  I'm happy you still play games.  Why would you assume because I just want to level quickly, that I am young, and just want to kill stuff? How many times can I level up doing the SAME QUESTS IN EVERY MMO without being bored?  I just want to get it out of the way. 

Sorry, I don't want to read the text.  It's a waste of time.  Most of the quests are bullshit.  "I have a rat problem, can you solve it for me?  Kill 20 rats and bring them to me."  People had to read text back then because the technology wasn't there yet.  It's almost 2010, man... get over it.

 

 

Or maybe TOR will address that problem since all the NPCs talk?  I'm cool with that.  I'm NOT cool with eliminating stories and lore from MMORPGs.

And yes, being that I'm about  20 years older than you and could be your mother....I consider you the "younger generation."  I'm sorry about that.  If you ask your mother, she'll probably say the same thing.  No offense, but...there are a lot of people my age and older that play and we have a right to have our preferences too.  Most of us that do still play, were part of the original MMORPG genre, like Ultima Online, Everquest and even the MUDs before them.  So yes....we probably have a different idea about how we like things.  I'm not at ALL resistant to new technology making games better.  I LOVE that!  But when you start talking about eliminating storylines and lore....yeah...I get a bit bitchy about that, considering that it's the basis for why we're even PLAYING the game. Your characters reason for even existing is that you're a part of that story unfolding. That is what the "RPG" part of MMORPG means.

But yes...if your complaint is just the time to read stuff...sure, cutscenes or talking NPCs are fine with me.  Heck even allow people to hit escape to get out of them if they want...just don't eliminate story from the genre.

You're probably not suggesting eliminating story...you just don't like having to read it.  I understand.  I don't have an issue with that.  I don't really think we probably disagree as much as it sounds like we do.

Originally posted by Warpiglet

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Warpiglet

 You want the a drake mount in BC, go grind for a month strait.

 

Really? I got myself a nice drake mount just by doing a couple of timed CoT strat runs. Total time spent - maybe an hour and a half?

 

All the main faction WoTLK faction reputations are easy for anyone who enjoys running instances. The only real grind is Hodir rep for the shoulder enchant - but even that's been simplified considerably with the ability to hand in relics for reputation.

 

All the important faction reputations are much much easier to get than factions were in Vanilla or TBC. Of course - there are still tasks out there that take a long time (e.g. some achievements) - but almost all of those are almost completely optional. And to me it's much better to always have plenty more things to do in a game than to run out of stuff to do.

 

Interesting you got a Drake from running timed Strat when timed Strat wasn't there in Burning Crusade. Let me guess you just started playing WoW and you are trying to make like you know everything about it?

WoW is total grind, pve grind or pvp grind don't matter what one. Go kill hundreds or thousands of the same thing to get your relics to get your shoulder enchants, have fun.

You want a Motorcycle? be prepared to grind for MONTHS, unless you are smart like me and make 4000g a day in the auction house for 30 min work. I am the anti grinder.

Man can you even read? Where did he say he did timed CoT during BC???

You obviously haven't played WoW during the WotLK expansion at all, so frankly, it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about.  There have been a lot of changes in game to how reputation is gained, and what Antipathy said, is all true, as far as how gaining faction is very simple now.  You wear the tabard of the faction that you want to gain with and just run some lvl 80 dungeons or heroics (which you're going to be running ANYWAY for loot).  What's the big deal in that?

Besides....the whole idea of "grinding" is truly a subjective thing.  Something becomes a "grind" when you don't like it, basically.  I don't feel like I'm grinding at all.  Of course I like making easy money with dailies and I'm in a raid guild, so the running instances and raids for rep thing is as easy as breathing.  There's no grind TO IT.

Grind for MONTHS for the motorcycle???  WTF?  Who has to DO that?  Don't WEAR a tabard, run lvl 80 instances and heroics, and blammo....rep achieved.  That's the faction your rep automatically defaults to when you don't WEAR a tabard.  Maybe you didn't know that.....

Dude....you probably need to just take a break from WoW or leave it entirely if you think the game is grinding at THIS point.  They've made it so easy to get rep now you can almost do it in your sleep.

Originally posted by parrotpholk

There are a few reasons.

 

1) Its not EQ1 which the purists held so dear

2) It had a horrible launch

3) Blizzard made good on that failed launch there for making it very hard to recover

4) The game is very top heavy with a very lonely journey and you miss a ton of content that people no longer run

 

These are just a few. Its a shame really because it is a great game but hampered by some handicaps thats hard for a new player to overlook

Yes....this.

I have a lvl 64 wizard/provisioner and a 48 troubador sitting on Everfrost.  I LOVED EQ2....I really did.  The crafting was so far above and beyond other games.  And I really really miss my house in Qeynos. 

However....I no longer have the TIME it would take to SOLO those characters to max level.  This isn't WoW we're talking about here and playing EQ2 casually definitely doesn't have very speedy results.  Not that I think leveling is of utmost importance in a game, it's not.  But my guildmates, since I quit EQ2, have of course continued on and the last time I TRIED to go back to it....no one is really interested in helping you run heritage quests and instances that are too low for them.

For me....it's all really a matter of time constraints and the fact that I have now bonded with people in another game and enjoy playing with THEM.

Too many people to reply to, so I won't quote ANYONE this time.

Personally...I don't MIND paying taxes to help other people.  Somehow, Fisher (and others), you've forgotten that I have been paying taxes MYSELF for 30 years.  I have absolutely NO problem asking for help from the government now if I need it.  I have paid into the system that helped my son MYSELF.  I'm not "stealing" your freaking money, thank you very much.  And I, personally, am not such an ASS that I would be bitching about helping other people with my tax dollar....never have....never will.

It does not offend me for someone, like my son, that is a hard working kid, who needs some help to be able to survive...to be able to get that help.  It wouldn't have mattered to me if it had been any of YOUR children rather than mine.  The point is...it's a godsend that that help was THERE for us.  And I'm pretty sure that you'd feel the same way.  And I would certainly not be complaining that my taxes were helping you.

The selfishness of people is really amazing to me. Sure it would be lovely if people would just kindly help each other in neighborhoods and communities and paying taxes for these sorts of things were unnecessary, but you are PROVING why that doesn't work.

Part of being an U.S. citizen is that we have a tax system.  For now...that is how it is.  If you don't like that....move to a country that doesn't "force you" (god forbid) to help others with YOUR hard earned dollar.  Myself....I don't mind that some of what I work for might just help someone I don't know.  Human beings are human beings whether they're in my own personal family or not.