|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
The merging of Big Data with the general poor quality of research in the social sciences is a source of endless humor.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'd like to see this mythical speech Lmao I just saw this dudes avatar people aren't getting salty at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Lmao I just saw this dudes avatar people aren't getting salty at all That's interesting that you saw an avatar. Keep me posted
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Lmao I just saw this dudes avatar people aren't getting salty at all Haha I got a new one, cool!  I liked word chat earlier so I went ahead and made a wordcloud of my own posting... "bad Hillary think"... it's... beautiful also shout out to "purge party good" on the east coast http://www.wordclouds.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Haha I got a new one, cool!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
SickZip posted:The merging of Big Data with the general poor quality of research in the social sciences is a source of endless humor. Honestly the merging of Big Data and anything turns out pretty hilarious/horrifying. Most data scientists couldn't find their rear end with both hands if the algorithm told them it wasn't on their backside. Quants in general should be chained up in basements so they don't accidentally think they're real people to whom anyone should listen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
Sorry, my need to avenge St. Bernard means she never did anything right. MizPiz posted:Using the word "job" is not the same as actually talking about jobs. Yeah maybe she was talking about handjobs JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sorry, my need to avenge St. Bernard means she never did anything right. I mean, she hosed up the most winnable election of all time by being a steaming pile of human refuse and ran possibly the worst campaign in living memory. Her campaign actively turned back volunteers trying to save the day from the campaign's own colossal incompetence. Yet she still refuses to accept any responsibility and just mutters 'russians' and 'comey'. The Russians didn't do poo poo except trick Podesta with a fake login and reveal how much the DNC hated the idea of fair elections. Maybe if the DNC had tried less skulduggery, the hacks wouldn't have been an issue? If you walk away from this election with any impression other than Hillary is a festering pile of poo poo, I dunno what to tell you. She was real bad. Super bad. Legendarily bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sorry, my need to avenge St. Bernard means she never did anything right. She made some speeches nobody heard, legacy saved
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:She made some speeches nobody heard, legacy saved I thought everyone was angry with her in the first place about some speeches nobody heard  Anyway, that the DNC chair looks like it's gonna be either Ellison (most likely) or Perez suggests that perhaps the Democrats aren't gonna be running to the right any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I thought everyone was angry with her in the first place about some speeches nobody heard We're talking about her failure to reach voters. Different topic than how corrupt she is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:We're talking about her failure to reach voters. Different topic than how corrupt she is. These are not mutually exclusive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:These are not mutually exclusive? More specifically the message she was trying to convey to voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I mean, she hosed up the most winnable election of all time by being a steaming pile of human refuse and ran possibly the worst campaign in living memory. Her campaign actively turned back volunteers trying to save the day from the campaign's own colossal incompetence. Yet she still refuses to accept any responsibility and just mutters 'russians' and 'comey'. The Russians didn't do poo poo except trick Podesta with a fake login and reveal how much the DNC hated the idea of fair elections. Maybe if the DNC had tried less skulduggery, the hacks wouldn't have been an issue? People that their entire online persona is built up around someone like her aren't going to go down that easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yeah maybe she was talking about handjobs I'd have voted for her for a handjob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No, people actually like handjobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No, people actually like handjobs. nobody likes handjobs
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
zegermans posted:nobody likes handjobs True, but anybody would settle for one
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
zegermans posted:nobody likes handjobs handjobs better than no jobs
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
A giggity economy I can get behind. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
zegermans posted:nobody likes handjobs A good handjob is pretty great, sorry you've never had one that wasn't from yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Andrew Puzder will make Starbucks give out handjobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Andrew Puzder will make Starbucks give out handjobs. And Idiocracy comes one step closer to reality. But seriously let me get a double latte. Extra foam, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
has clinton had any sort of public contact with people who weren't her donors ever since her concession speech?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:has clinton had any sort of public contact with people who weren't her donors ever since her concession speech? Did she before her concession speech?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yeah maybe she was talking about handjobs wow you sure did a good job of owning this guy
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Just so we're clear about what protections we're losing when the ACA is repealed, let's recap: Benefits of the ACA: * Ridiculously high premiums you can't afford anyway * A big fine for not paying them * Even if you ARE insured, bankrupcy-inducing levels of out-of-pocket expenses. I'm fully insured and I can't afford to go to the doctor because I have a $4500 out-of-pocket gap to make up before it pays a single loving penny. Even then, I had to go through bankruptcy to dump over $25,000 in medical bills generated in a single calendar year when I WAS insured. If the ACA is repealed, I still won't be able to afford to go to the doctor, but at least I won't be paying hundreds a month for the privilege of not being able to afford to go to the doctor. gently caress, maybe I could save a few months worth of premiums and afford to go. poo poo, when I DIDN'T have insurance my doctor gave me a break. He can't do that when I'm insured, because he'd be kicked out of network. Even though my insurance company doesn't actually pay anything, they still get to force the amount I pay. This isn't a "Perfect is the enemy of the good" situation. The ACA is a loving mess, and the only people who think it's fine are Rah-Rah D-Team cheerleaders who get insured through their jobs and haven't had to pick through the offerings on the exchanges. Fixing it might have been an option, but it's not like the democrats campaigned on concrete changes. Reducing OOP expenses, capping premium growth to inflation, anything that would help someone being hosed at both ends by our insurance system. Those people heard deafening silence from Hillary, and a loud "It's broken, it doesn't work, I'm going to get rid of it" from Trump. Boy, it's a mystery why they voted the way they did. Incomprehensible. I still voted for Hillary, but I don't blame people she wasn't going to help for not voting for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Even if you have insurance through your job, premiums have been going 10% year to year for the same or slightly worse coverage and everyone blames Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
The messaging after they repeal will be that Obamacare somehow unplugged the tap on insurance price increases so if you premiums go up until the end of time it will be because of Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Harik posted:Benefits of the ACA: Campaigning to fix it would have meant admitting to the insurrection of the blue dog dems when they had the chance to do it right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Harik posted:Benefits of the ACA: ACA is broken in a lot of ways, for a lot of people, but that's because health insurance companies are holding America by the balls. If ACA is repealed, you won't have to pay penalties for being uninsured, but if you do end up in ER, the rest of us will have to pay your bills. It works like this: you are uninsured. You get into an accident and end up in the ER. After you recover, they present you a bill of $100,000. You can't pay it and declare bankruptcy, but the hospital has to cover the expense somehow, so they pass it on to the rest of the patients. Because those patients are insured, their insurance companies end up picking up the tab, which they then pass on to everyone in the form of increased premiums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
the big problem with health care reform in America isn't insurance companies but the AMA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It works like this: you are uninsured. You get into an accident and end up in the ER. After you recover, they present you a bill of $100,000. You can't pay it and declare bankruptcy, but the hospital has to cover the expense somehow, so they pass it on to the rest of the patients. Because those patients are insured, their insurance companies end up picking up the tab, which they then pass on to everyone in the form of increased premiums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Thus passing the cost of healthcare away from those who can't pay and unto people who can afford insurance. Maybe, but the problem is that this happens through tremendously bloated and inefficient channels. If my premium goes up $50 year-over-year, only $5-10 of that increase actually pays for the bills of those who can't afford healthcare. The rest ends up in the pockets of various parties along the way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Seems like repealing ACA completely before replacing it with anything else in the meantime would be bad if not only for the pre-existing conditions denial thing, which makes it impossible for somebody to even attempt to get insurance when they actually need it for something like cancer
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Seems like repealing ACA completely before replacing it with anything else in the meantime would be bad if not only for the pre-existing conditions denial thing, which makes it impossible for somebody to even attempt to get insurance when they actually need it for something like cancer The free market will fix the problem, don't worry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
"Maybe those people should have planned their lives around randomly getting cancer. Now let me tell you why nothing that goes wrong in my life is my fault and I shouldn't be held accountable."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Maybe, but the problem is that this happens through tremendously bloated and inefficient channels. If my premium goes up $50 year-over-year, only $5-10 of that increase actually pays for the bills of those who can't afford healthcare. The rest ends up in the pockets of various parties along the way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The free market will fix the problem, don't worry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Maybe, but the problem is that this happens through tremendously bloated and inefficient channels. If my premium goes up $50 year-over-year, only $5-10 of that increase actually pays for the bills of those who can't afford healthcare. The rest ends up in the pockets of various parties along the way. If your employer covers you, it's actually your employer shifting more and more of the liability to you and away from them. If you work for a company >500 people chances are they self insure, which means the "insurance company" is actually your employer (who sets aside money to pay the claims) and not the claims administrator (the insurance company that builds the networks and handles claim paperwork). This sleight of hand is why people have no idea how the employer paid system works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:37
|
|