|
|
Ah. Miss Fluke giving the obligatory "I am woman, hear me roar" speech.
|
On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. 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. 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.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system.
|
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC.
|
On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:
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'll let you numbers slide because I don't care about the actual amounts and would just like to say there is a difference between "cost" and "what your health insurance provider is charged"
|
On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote: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 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy.
It was really a bailout of the UAW, a major labour union that contributes huge money to democrats. In my opinion this was one of the most deplorable acts of Obama's presidency.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462650268680454.html
|
On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC.
Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control.
-_-
|
On September 06 2012 11:03 xDaunt wrote:
Ah. Miss Fluke giving the obligatory "I am woman, hear me roar" speech.
"I am woman. Pay for my birth control and abortions."
|
On September 06 2012 11:07 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:03 xDaunt wrote:
Ah. Miss Fluke giving the obligatory "I am woman, hear me roar" speech. "I am woman. Pay for my birth control and abortions."
lol cause that's what they are talking about...???
Birth control is often times for medical conditions.
I am a man, pay for my penis pills!
|
On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. 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. 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. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system.
Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something  .
|
On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_-
The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line.
|
On September 06 2012 11:06 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote: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 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. It was really a bailout of the UAW, a major labour union that contributes huge money to democrats. In my opinion this was one of the most deplorable acts of Obama's presidency. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462650268680454.html
You have no idea what would have happened to Michigan if it didn't happen. Anyone who thinks the fallout would be limited to GM and Chrysler are absolutely nuts and have no idea how suppliers work for the auto industry. Unemployment would have been catastrophic in the midwest. Ford and the other automakers would have been raped as well. The suppliers would have lost a TON of business and likely have gone bankrupt themselves leaving no one to supply the OEM's.
|
On September 06 2012 11:03 xDaunt wrote:
Ah. Miss Fluke giving the obligatory "I am woman, hear me roar" speech.
Where's my snooze alarm?
|
On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. 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. 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. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something .
Anyone who think that healthcare in the States is special for anyone except the super-wealthy is delusional. We get long waits, rushed and impersonal care, and ridiculous bills routinely.
|
Oh right, we have a speech from the squaw, Elizabeth Warren to look forward to tonight. Man, she is walking proof of the existence of stupid smart people.
|
football game, people. football.
|
On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. 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. 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. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something .
Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world.
My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay.
You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws.
|
On September 06 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_- The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line.
lol it was an awful line
What even is a slut? Someone who slept with 1 person before marriage? Someone who slept with 3 people? 5? Where does the line begin and end, who exactly is a slut? I've had sex with two people in my life, outside of marriage.. am I slut? Sex is fun and natural, and you shouldn't shame someone for having sex, his comment was fucking idiotic and I can't believe your supporting him at all. Great line?
She wasn't talking about herself wanting birth control, she was talking about her lesbian friend who needed it for a medical condition. My girlfriend takes it for Endometriosis. There are other reasons to take birth control as well. (although it should be provided for those that want birth control to have sex, I think it's funny the republicans, against abortion, are against contraceptives being covered. It costs the country way more when girls have unwanted children).
This anti-women bullshit in this thread about Sandra Fluke is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
|
Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is.
|
On September 06 2012 11:09 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote: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 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. It was really a bailout of the UAW, a major labour union that contributes huge money to democrats. In my opinion this was one of the most deplorable acts of Obama's presidency. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462650268680454.html You have no idea what would have happened to Michigan if it didn't happen. Anyone who thinks the fallout would be limited to GM and Chrysler are absolutely nuts and have no idea how suppliers work for the auto industry. Unemployment would have been catastrophic in the midwest. Ford and the other automakers would have been raped as well. The suppliers would have lost a TON of business and likely have gone bankrupt themselves leaving no one to supply the OEM's.
I am not arguing against the bailout, just the way it was handled. Read the article. As far as I know none of the facts laid out in this op-ed are disputed. If there's another side to the story I would be interested to hear it.
|
On September 06 2012 11:14 ThreeAcross wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. 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. 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. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something . Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world. My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay. You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws.
Well, you do know insurance companies negotiate with the Physicians/hospitals as far as the costs go right? Thats something that the regular citizen would never be able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
