Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - haunted

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 429
Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: Today at 05:46:22 AM »
warning: offensive content in video below. View with headphones on, not around your kids, etc.

How is this still on YouTube? Lol

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: Today at 04:37:25 AM »
So I guess your answer is no, it wouldn't have been better if I stated it would eliminate what "little" competition exists.

There's a lot of research there if you want to use any of it to further dismantle my lack of not having an appropriate adjective to convey that a free market is never perfect, and health insurance companies are a clear example of that.

If that's a link of John Oliver telling me that health insurance companies make too much money and big pharma is bad, let me get a cup of coffee first before I embark on this path to enlightenment.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 24, 2020, 08:16:56 PM »
If I were to have said eliminate what little competition that does exist, would that have been better?  :???:

I pay a $25 copay for all doctor visits.

ER has varying costs depending on what needs to be done. Typically 50, 100 is max.

All procedures, surgery, whatever involving anesthesia is 50 dollars.

Two child births, 5 surgeries, 8 ER visits, everything my family has ever needed was completely covered. I only recall ONE thing not covered, and that was a very early test for down syndrome and other disorders during a high risk pregnancy.

If I go to fill 3 prescriptions, it's usually 2 dollars. It's been going up though, that used to be 80 cents.

Albuterol inhaler 45$(used to be 15 5 years ago).

I heard from a co-worker that EpiPen is 250 I think.

Jokes / Re: Funny videos
« on: February 24, 2020, 06:16:38 PM »

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 24, 2020, 09:19:08 AM »
If I had just became eligible for medicare and had been paying into it my whole life id be more than wary of eliminating privatized healthcare. Medicare has benefited from the standard that private care sets. Similar to non-union workers benefiting from the standard unions set.

I also feel from a personal liberty standpoint if you don't want medicare for all, or you want to keep your current insurance, you should be able to do so.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 24, 2020, 08:22:58 AM »
Glad she's ok. We've had are fair share of procedures from open heart surgery, to a tumor the size of a baseball being misdiagnosed as stage 4 lymphoma when it was benign.

You know more about medicare than me, i only know about it through my parents. If you're comparing it to a regional bluecross blue shield, then yeah you'll probably prefer medicare.  Sometimes you'll have to write state legislators to get them to cover major procedures that should be covered. That's messed up. But through PHCS, PPO, MultiPlan, etc you'll more access and better access. Like I said, I am not opposed to universal care, but it would 1) limit my access to preferred providers, and 2) make the wait time for procedures longer. If it was EXACTLY like medicare is currently for 65+, and staff was multiplied exponentially to accommodate the US population, I STILL wouldn't have faith in it being carried out efficiently logistic-wise which isn't even Bernie or whoever's fault DIRECTLY. Eliminating pirvatized insurance would eliminate competition and drive down standards. Government run crap on a large scale tends to kinda suck historically. Theoretically though, medicare for all sounds ok. It's a happy medium for everyone to get sufficient care and I understand that...but, like I said, it's laughable that they're basically making it look out that I'll be making out like a bandit (an extra 24k in your pocket if you make 150k a year--no, I don't make that much), and receiving BETTER services. It's just not true. This policy is not aimed to benefit me. And bending the truth and acting like it's a flawless plan only makes one feel that they're unprepared to take on such a cumbersome task. If they acknowledged what I said above more, which some have at times, people like me would be more receptive.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 23, 2020, 06:57:36 PM »
I'm one of those weirdos that enjoy my health insurance provided by my employer as well. Great in regards to quality and wait time, however, I do find myself being an intermediary nearly every time to actually GET my provider to pay for services that are covered (despite the healthcare facility having my card and information, lol). That failure is extremely consistent, I'd say about 90%. But, it's likely due to our health insurance administrators always being swamped and understaffed dealing with facilities because my provider is uncommon and not known to a lot of places. If they have to get involved with nearly all of my families visits, they gotta be busy with the other 2,700 employees+families.

Bernie and others keep saying that he'll take away my insurance and I'll pocket 20k a year by going to medicare for all. There is NO FUCKING WAY im even getting half as good of healthcare with that happening, correction IF that happens. It's absolutely ridiculous that a situation is being painted that I get money and better services from medicare for all when the whole friggin' purpose of universal healthcare isn't to benefit ME. They're so full of shit. The logistical and institutional failures are endless and a complete nightmare once we do have universal healthcare, which I'm not opposed to, but they act like it's some flawless plan most of the time when it's the exact opposite.

dm / Re: User Abuse Towards Others
« on: February 22, 2020, 08:48:16 AM »
Post a demo if you think someone's cheating, and we'll review it. Panjoo can be a pot stirrer, but I extremely doubt he's doing anything to cheat.

/dev/random / Re: The Fight Thread
« on: February 20, 2020, 04:19:14 PM »
Yup I saw it. That was a silly fight in general but he clearly lost every minute of it. Mr. backflips needs to improve his fight IQ because that was such a preventable silly mistake to cap off a silly fight... while I was watching it im like don't do it Diego,  when I saw his mannerisms and "I can't see"... then he did. Disappointing.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 20, 2020, 02:08:53 PM »
Yeah these pardons/commutings seem pretty messed up. This doesn't change that, but the amount of pardons/commutes does add a bit of context:

Carter: 566
Reagan: 406
HW bush: 77
Bill Clinton: 459
George W: 200
Obama: 1,927
Trump: 35

I really can't compare the nature of previous pardons, and I'm sure the bulk of them are less scandalous than the ones being hyped to us now. But, I'm also equally sure that there's some screwed up ones that didn't get the coverage that these are getting now.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 19, 2020, 08:25:48 PM »
I watched the debate mainly because Bloomberg would be on it. My take is that Peter Buttiguy is the smartest guy and the best orator. Researching his views he's certainly not a moderate like he's portrayed; he just looks like one next to Bernie. Which is why we often talk about how far left the party has shifted. It's not just some exceptionally radical folks; their whole center and how it's defined has shifted. But, it's a shame that the world isn't ready for a gay president in my opinion. I think focalor had a point the other day. I would love for Tulsi gabbard to go tell all those backwards camel jockies what's up as a woman whom they consider beneath them. But unfortunately, I don't think it's feasible yet for a gay person to have the same diplomatic success.

The talk about internet attacks in the beginning would never end. Worthless discussion. It made me want to turn it off.

IMO, marginally below Pete it was Biden, then maybe kobluchar who looked the best... If I were scoring on 20 different things including how annoying they are. I can't stand Pocahontas lol, and crazy Bernie was consistent. Mini mike was in the hot seat but came out mostly unscathed. He did ok considering.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 18, 2020, 03:25:50 PM »
Picking between Bloomberg and trump is an interesting thought. I guess I could be satisfied too? I think indifferent better describes my feelings though. I guess we'll see what happens in the next few months. Typically in a situation like that and an incumbent is producing results from time to time it's tough not to go with them, but 2020 is hardly typical. I could still see myself leaning towards trump anyway,  but when you factor in Bloomberg being in the biggest gun grabber I'd go trump for sure.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 18, 2020, 04:58:45 AM »
The democrat party being hijacked isn't up for dispute and there's two sides you can take. 1. I'm ok with it because I hate trump so bad, or 2. This is unacceptable, the democrat party needs to go back to the drawing board because we're not the party of AOC and the young Turks.

Ok, so I think this is the question you are addressing to me (since I'm the only one attempting to disrupt the echo chamber you guys have going on here - my apologies, btw).

The Democratic party certainly seems less united currently than the Republican party. That said, the Republican party has largely been hijacked by Trump to the same, or perhaps an even greater extent than what you imply is happening to the Democratic party. I think AOC herself said that in any other country, she and, I believe it was Biden, wouldn't be considered members of the same party (because their ideologies are so different), but that's what you get with the two-party system here in the U.S. (which I personally think is hugely problematic and holds a significant portion of the responsibility for the deep divisions we have in this country today - humans' inherent tribalistic leanings and all that). I think this is one of those false dichotomy situations though, where you're told you've got X number of options, and there are no other options available - not true. I guess I'd have to go with your #1 though... I don't 'hate' Trump so much as I'm convinced he's simply toxic and corrosive to our systems of government, our legitimacy and image in the world, and our legitimacy as being lead by competent, honorable people. Btw, I'm much more of a fan of AOC than TYT - I think Cenk is fairly dumb and a douchebag.

Thanks for the response, I actually expanded a bit on it with this:

Punk, I appreciate the discussion but you're sort of cherry-picking what to respond to. Are you content with the democrat party being hijacked by  communist/socialist radicals as long as it achieves the greater good of getting trump out of office? If the answer is yes, what if this strategy had no chance of beating trump in 2020? Would you then still be supportive of this happening to the democrat party? It would be crazy if you're answer is still yes.

If it doesn't achieve the goal of getting trump out of office, aren't efforts better focused on the left getting their shit straight? I'm not pro-trump. But I do notice the media bias against him, and I am very critical of the left because they are the ones that need to BECOME the more viable option. They're losing, yet all they do is become bigger losers.   :raincloud:

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 17, 2020, 12:11:05 PM »
I asked you something specific again punk, and all I got was paragraphs about the label commie when I was just informally stating how old school classic democrats feel. It's the truth, use google if you want, but that was simply to illustrate that those with true left ideals anchored in their beliefs feel that way. Not my main point at all though. Feel free to respond to everything in my post but don't ignore the main damn point or question and cherry pick something like that :lolsign:

Just trying to keep the discussion moving forward, you were kinda doing it to others as well.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: February 17, 2020, 11:59:02 AM »

Additionally, if Bernie becomes president and declares climate change a national emergency do you think they'd stick around then? Declaring national emergencies is the oldest trick in the book to obtain executive power to do whatever you want. Only...climate is involved with EVERYTHING. It would be disastrous to our economy and he's already said he'll do it. Why in the hell would they wanna do business here?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 429