League Casters Compare Future Of Healthcare To Death By Cyborg Man-Crab

The uncertain future of the American health care system, or being ground to death by a giant cyborg?

In a talk show-style segment that aired between games one and two of TSM vs. FlyQuest in today's League Championship Series matches, Josh "Jatt" Leesman and Sam "Kobe" Hartman-Kenzler debated which is more terrifying: the League of Legends champion Urgot's newly reworked ultimate, or the future of American healthcare. (The segment was recorded and published to YouTube two days prior to airing on the LCS stream.)

For reference, the Urgot ultimate launches a hook into enemies, which tethers them to the horrific melding of man and machine. If the enemy's health drops below a certain threshold, Urgot drags them in, shoots them in the face and grinds them up in his ab-gears.

American healthcare, meanwhile, has had millions of Americans on the edge of their seat, wondering if their current plans will still be effective the next day.

The segment is meant to be lighthearted, so Kobe and Jatt debate the two with a comedic back-and-forth. Both seem to land on the Urgot ultimate, one claiming that by definition, it's more terrifying (a successful Urgot ultimate applies a "fear" effect to nearby enemies).

A few responses on social media noted the strange jump from League analysis into politics, though This Or That has certainly never shied away from riffing on controversial subjects.

So, this or that?


    I never understood why Americans are so scared about losing Obamacare. I mean, it's not like it's really been a thing for a long time. I think people should only pay for things that they actually want. If they don't want healthcare, that's on them. You shouldn't be forced to pay for somebody else's healthcare.

      You'd rather disadvantaged people suffer or die than pay an extra dollar a day to help them? That's fucking disgusting, man. Humans are a social species, shared responsibility is part of almost every society on earth, affordable healthcare is enshrined by the United Nations as a basic human right.

        Isn't that what group insurance policies are for though? They tend to be somewhat cheaper and allow for people that are otherwise uninsurable to get the protection they need.

        This is obviously only applicable within the US insurance system and ultimately a socialist health system is best for all.

        The main problem with Obama care is that the system is ruined by the old system, the amount of stress placed on the system kept seeing the price consistantly go up, even for people that already had private health care. When doctors can charge pretty much what ever they want there is no room for socialism.

        So unless real reform occurs the system was always going to be unsustainable.

          I agree the US system is a mess that needs a complete overhaul. I think ours could stand to learn from some European systems too. I wouldn't say Obamacare was perfect by any means, but it was an improvement on what was there before and is looking a lot better than what the Republicans currently seem to want to replace it with.

          Americans consider socialism a dirty word thanks to the anti-communist paranoia of the 50s, even though they're fundamentally different concepts. They tend to see responsibility and freedom as sides of a single scale, where more responsibility inherently reduces freedom. The problem with that is it only applies at a base, individual level. At a societal level, freedom and responsibility aren't mutually exclusive and some responsibility assigned to everyone can improve the freedom of society as a whole.

            Yeah, but as I said; unless the system is reformed Obama care would have likely been unsustainable.

            The worst outcomes are often the product of the best intentions and in this case the systems short term benefits could have been over shadowed by long term economic issues for low income families.

            Balancing socialism with capitalism is always going to be difficult.

              I don't think there were any problems with the ACA that couldn't have been worked out by incremental adjustment if both parties had been willing to consider amendments. It's a shame the Republicans remained so staunchly against the system even existing, and I believe that stance cost the US the opportunity for solid advancement in healthcare standards.

      What if you don't want roads or police or firefighters or a military? Some things are a collective need / responsibility, whether you want them or not.

        Ok, but those things that you mentioned are pretty much necessities. Nobody actually NEEDS healthcare. If they want healthcare, they can get it.

          Nobody actually needs healthcare? What?

            I can't really live my life without needing to use roads.I can't really live my life safely without a police force or military or fire fighters. I CAN live my life perfectly fine without healthcare. People should only be forced to pay for things that the majority NEEDS for they're daily life.

              You can actually live without all of those other things much more easily than you can live without healthcare.

              You can live just fine without police - just hire private security to protect yourself and your home. Why do we need taxpayer funded firefighters? They can just give you a bill for a few thousand dollars when they come to put out the fire in your house. Why am I paying taxes for a whole bunch of roads when I only drive on a few? We could make every single street a toll road so that only the people who use them have to pay for them.

              And none of those things will do you a damn bit of good if you're dead because you couldn't afford decent medical treatment when you got cancer or had a heart attack or got in a car accident.

          No see that's where you're wrong. Universal access to health is enshrined in Article 25 of the UNDHR. And even just on a purely pragmatic level, everyone, absolutely everyone on the planet NEEDS healthcare, from birth (especially at birth come to think of it.....
          Global maternal death rates circa 2015:
          - Aus: ~6 in 100k, health coverage: free
          - US: ~14 in 100k, health coverage: $$$
          - Sierra Leone: ~1300 in 100k, health coverage largely unavailable, and $$$$$ if it is)

          Even if you're philosophically opposed to basic human rights in general, or access to healthcare being one of them, "if they want healthcare, they can get it" is just plainly false, especially in the US. The only places in the world where that's not false are places like Australia, because we are all covered for free.

            Well it's not free, we pay taxes for it. It's a shared burden, just like those other essential services I described in my earlier comment,and its just as important / essential as any of those other things.

              Yeah I agree, was responding to thehasbrogamer.

              That being said, not everyone pays taxes and everyone's covered so yeah, health care is free in Australia. You could say that people start paying for it in a two-steps-removed kind of way when they earn above the tax free threshold, but that's an abstraction - you can't say where any individual person's money has gone, and the ATO certainly don't send an equal percentage of everyone's tax to health for example, so it's not accurate to say you're paying for it. We pay taxes, and taxes pay for things. I know that's a stupidly pedantic distinction to draw, but the 'I'm paying for other people and I shouldn't have to' argument (in my experience most commonly posited by rich people who, given Australia's tax laws, likely pay much less than their fair share of tax in the first place) is only really possible if the discussion of tax is framed as an individual contribution instead of a shared burden like you say.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now