EPTYeah, this woman's jokes are pretty bad. Could tell she thought the "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition" was really good and expected a better response.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 428
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
Yeah, this woman's jokes are pretty bad. Could tell she thought the "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition" was really good and expected a better response. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
Humorously, I think part of the crowd doesn't know if they should cheer or boo each statement XD | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:17 JinDesu wrote: On the other hand, she sure is firing up the women in the crowd. Humorously, I think part of the crowd doesn't know if they should cheer or boo each statement XD I'm still at work. But you make her sound like the Steve Wright of convention speakers. Either she's a genius or she suck balls. I can't believe I'm missing this. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:33 Defacer wrote: I'm still at work. But you make her sound like the Steve Wright of convention speakers. Either she's a genius or she suck balls. I can't believe I'm missing this. It's ok, she's over with - I didn't think she's terrible, but I am definitely not her target audience. Quick question - how do military folk deal with health insurance after leaving the military? Wouldn't they all practically be considered "pre-existing conditions"? Or is there a specific fund that deals with with that? | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:16 Chocolate wrote: Anyone know when Clinton speaks? It says 8PM ET on the side but obviously that's wrong... Yeah, this woman's jokes are pretty bad. Could tell she thought the "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition" was really good and expected a better response. 10:25 Eastern according to the ABC News schedule. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
Edit, thanks above poster =) | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 06 2012 08:55 sunprince wrote: Only when either does not infringe upon the rights of others. You do not have a right to manage your health in a way that hurts others, whether by carrying around infectious diseases instead of getting treated or by skimping on health insurance and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill when something happens. Out of curiosity, where are you on the healthcare debate? Tax payers where already paying for other people's health care (ex. medicaid and emergency services) before the ACA. Do you feel it is better that everyone be forced to pay into system to extend and improve their own care, or do you think that tax payers should still pay for things like medicaid, but the benefits should be capped (ex. voucher system). | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 06 2012 08:24 Defacer wrote: I think it really depends on what your needs are and what treatment your required. There are people that complain that the Canadian health care is impersonal, but I find they have no concept of how much healthcare actually costs. A person receiving ongoing cancer treatment in the States may be getting 'the best care in the world' but they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or they just chose to buy insurance and the treatment is covered. | ||
|
Bandino
United States342 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:49 ziggurat wrote: Or they just chose to buy insurance and the treatment is covered. You are sorely misinformed if you believe it is that easy to get your treatment covered through an insurance. | ||
|
ThreeAcross
172 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:55 Bandino wrote: You are sorely misinformed if you believe it is that easy to get your treatment covered through an insurance. It is fairly easy to get your treatments covered through insurance. They need to actually be necessary procedures, and not just because you feel like going to the doctor though. --I do own a small business that performs billing/collection duties for smaller health practices. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21793 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:49 ziggurat wrote: Or they just chose to buy insurance and the treatment is covered. But thats the whole problem with the US health insurance. Once you start costing them money they kick you out. | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On September 06 2012 10:13 Souma wrote: So far the first night has trumped tonight. Yeah, I've been muting a lot of speakers and listening to other things. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote: The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7256 Posts
On September 06 2012 10:47 Falling wrote: Oh. Bain fall out is a little more interesting. yep lol. Also, as far as the auto industry stuff goes, I still can't believe Romney would actually try to campaign on being against the "bailouts". FYI They were loans. I can't speak from a GM perspective, but as far as Chrysler goes things are going incredibly well and the loan has been paid back with interest. The only reason Ford didnt need a "bailout" was because they got their money from the banks a few years earlier. No banks were giving Chrysler or GM the kind of loans that were necessary in 2007/2008 | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote: yep lol. Also, as far as the auto industry stuff goes, I still can't believe Romney would actually try to campaign on being against the "bailouts". FYI They were loans. I can't speak from a GM perspective, but as far as Chrysler goes things are going incredibly well and the loan has been paid back with interest. The only reason Ford didnt need a "bailout" was because they got their money from the banks a few years earlier. No banks were giving Chrysler or GM the kind of loans that were necessary in 2007/2008 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7256 Posts
On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. Loan bruh. Paid back in full. They were going bankrupt because it wasn't possible to get loans from the banks. Do you have any idea what the operating costs of an OEM are? | ||
| ||
