quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Is this any indication of your bedside manners?

No need to be a dick here PD.

You too? I’m not the one who has resorted to rude and crude.

Agreed, but that was a little below the belt.

To be clear, I've been on the receiving end of a bullshit case where I did NOTHING wrong. Everything I did was done appropriately, within the standard of care, and at the right time. Yet, I was put through the wringer because the patient wasn't happy with the outcome. Shit happens that is often out of our control.

I'm a little testy with this topic as you would expect.

Save your critiques and stick to the subject at hand.

I'm glad to see a Federal judge side with the 20 States! The (U)ACA (Un-affordable Care Act) never should have survived scrutiny by the Roberts Court. I don't know what happened to that guy... there is all sorts of speculation as to why but he flipped!

I agree that the ACA was/is unconstitutional and should have been declared so long ago. I don't know what its fate will be now, but hope it does go away. I have no skin in the game because my health insurance is covered in other ways.

However, what is called "health insurance" is a misnomer, because it isn't really insurance at all (as was mentioned by another earlier)--it is prepaid fees for services for the most part. Insurance is supposed to be coverage for unlikely expensive events: home insurance covers fire, tornado, plane crash into, etc.--things that are not common but would cost a lot of money; auto insurance covers accidents (not supposed to be common); etc. Current health insurance pays for almost anything medical, and the co-pay is so low that it is used all the time.

I think it would be best if health insurance went back to what it was--coverage for expensive unlikely events--and routine doctor visits, etc. were paid directly to the doctors involved. Tax-free medical pre-payment funds could be used to handle intermediate needs. I remember being treated at home for minor ailments--my mom was always ready with iodine or merthiolate, peroxide, Band-aids, OTC medications for coughs, etc. and I almost never saw a doctor as a child. Nowadays, every sniffle results in a visit to the doctor, every scratch a trip to the ER. How did so many of us live as long as we have without constant attention by doctors? We had mothers who knew what to do, that's what.

flashguy

My opinion from my experience as a trial lawyer and then a businessman: Expensive lawsuits are not unique to doctors. The company I run is currently being sued by a worker of a subcontractor. I believe in my heart this is a completely BS lawsuit, but I know my insurance company will pay something to make it go away. I'm spending a lot of money in both hard and soft costs along the way.

Three times over the last 11 years of working here I've been sued over asbestos that workers claimed they were exposed to 178 years ago when they worked for the company for 3 days. (insert mild sarcasm alert here)

It's part of doing business and we all pay for the insurance to cover it. That amount gets passed onto the customers. We do a ton of work in healthcare. Most hospitals and doctors I know complain about the ever diminishing reimbursements from insurance carries and the .gov well before they even mention tort reform. Despite said complaints, most doctors and healthcare administrators I know (and it's a whole lot of them) manage to do pretty well for themselves. The small independent docs are the ones taking a beating because they don't have the weight to negotiate with the insurance co's.

As such, I'd posit that tort reform isn't really a topic we need to worry about when addressing the cost of healthcare. I think it a red herring.

As for the thread topic. Without the mandate, it can't be called a tax. I think this judge and the lawyers who argued it are onto something rather ingenious here. I'll be curious to see how this goes as I think they're right, good luck calling it a tax now.

Part of our problem is that the Republicans have seemed to have rolled over on preexisting conditions. Fact is, it's like saying, I don't want to pay for auto insurance until I have an accident and insurance companies can't discriminate against me for preexisting accidents!

I do agree that some preexisting conditions must be covered. Forexample, a child is born with something crazy and is never insurable. We need to account for this. However, if you don't have your own insurance by say age 25, you're rolling the dice and I don't feel bad for you.

So preexisting conditions are somehow covered up until age 25. Then we educate everyone on the need for insurance or it's gonna be a rough death if you have an illness that you can't pay for. Our citizens need to be worried about paying for food/water, insurance, shelter clothing...everything else <-- in that order!

Right now, folks aren't worried about it, so we make the rest of us cover them after the fact.

I read judge O’Connor’s ruling.

https://affordablecareactlitig...udgment-decision.pdf

It is actually quite well reasoned and just applies nfib vs sebilius to a change of law taking effect in January.

My initial reaction of judicial overreach was based on the text of the NBC news article in original post, and despite knowing that press articles are mostly deceptive and wrong, I assumed it had some validity . My error.

So I have read a few articles that are saying this will put the Rs in a very tough spot since they have not answer to ACA and this will lead to both the Rs taking a beating in 2020 and the progs getting their wet dream of socialized healthcare.

I can see their point, if the Rs do not come up with something that addresses the pre-existing conditions and other things people like, kids staying on their parents insurance to the age of 26 the cattle will turn to the progs for an answer....and they only have one answer.

At this point I do not believe we can go back to 2008 and the way Insurance was....

Also interestingly I read one or two pieces that said Roberts will never let this get heard. Once a higher court overturns this it will just lie settled until the congress solves it which is what Roberts wants.

Oh just to add my totally uneducated opinion, their should be some type of tort reform...and not just for Dr.'s....if it is decided your case was not brought in good faith....you and the lawyer has to pay.

still don't see the problem

the R's don't need an answer to ACA - leave it to the people

we don't need federal interference, and the R's coming out with a 'plan' is simply the R's doing to us what we hated the D's doing

just leave it alone

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
So, you're basically just talking out of your ass.

Moderated Status awaits you if I see this again. Be nice. You can argue your point without this kind of stuff.

Yes, I'm sorry. I apologize to PD for being way out of line. Was uncalled for.

While that would be ideal.....you cannot give out freebies then take them away from an uneducated populace....you will lose power.

The progs are salivating at the thought to push through their Health power grab...

Circus and bread, it worked (for a time) several millennia ago and still does.

Most people only look as far as something affects them and their families lives. This combined with a over active sense of entitlement and a poorly informed populace base means politicians (in some areas at least, unfortunately highly populated areas) need to keep giving their constituents free shit or at least act like they are or they will lose power.

There is no constitutional basis for Welfare or Medicaid......can you imagine if they tried taking them away at this point?

So we are left with a less than ideal situation...if the Rs do the right thing they will lose power and the progs will gain power and give the cattle what they now believe they are entitled to....everyone else's money.

If the Rs do what they have to do to stay in power we move one step closer to Socialism.

Most Rs will do whatever they have to do to stay in power.

all this means is that the R's have to grow a pair and republicans and conservatives need to get out and vote rather than sit back and stay apathetic

just bout every election hinges on the 1% of undecided - you don't need to convince the 49.5% that are always R or always D. That wont change.

But we pay no attention to the the 1% which do the most amount of damage

With the shifting demographics in key states I believe it will be increasingly hard for Rs to say.."you have no right to other peoples money" and win.

Look at AZ, FL and even Texas, as the larger population centers turn blue in these states we see races that have not been historically close come down to 1-2%.

Personally the performances of progs like Francis (I refuse to call him Beto) made it very clear to me that unless the Rs do something different...like pull in the Black and Hispanic right leaning populace that they have yet been unable to capture they have maybe 15-20 years of dwindling significance before they become a permanent 2nd place power.

So while I would agree with you emotionally my pragmatic sides sees this the same as expecting Unicorns and fairies to clean my garage.

Trump won due to his ability to pull in the Reagan Republicans ....those blue collar re: union households.

Most of the current Rs do not have this ability because they are weak rinos and the people see them as they truly are.

Sorry...getting of my soap box, just frustrates me, not you of course , the path I see my country heading down

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
So, you're basically just talking out of your ass.

Moderated Status awaits you if I see this again. Be nice. You can argue your point without this kind of stuff.

Yes, I'm sorry. I apologize to PD for being way out of line. Was uncalled for.

Apology accepted

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Your facts aren’t welcome here.

Explain this remark, please.

You should clarify this remark, because it appears to me that you were issuing a blanket criticism of this forum, and I will not stand for that. Perhaps you meant something else. Now would be the time to explain that.

Criticising this forum and its members is a superb way of getting my full and immediate attention.

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
I read judge O’Connor’s ruling.

https://affordablecareactlitig...udgment-decision.pdf

It is actually quite well reasoned and just applies nfib vs sebilius to a change of law taking effect in January.

My initial reaction of judicial overreach was based on the text of the NBC news article in original post, and despite knowing that press articles are mostly deceptive and wrong, I assumed it had some validity . My error.

I read the decision fairly carefully and found it much different than the "outrageous act of unlawfulness" portrayed by many media outlets. It's pretty straightforward: the SCOTUS ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional as an exercise of Congress's commerce clause power, but it was constitutional because the failure to comply with it triggered a tax (the shared responsibility payment). In 2017 Congress eliminated the shared responsibility payment (tax) but kept the mandate in place. The question before the court was whether the individual mandate was still constitutional as an exercise of Congress's taxing power when the tax payment it used to trigger was eliminated. The court held it was not.

At this point I'd be happy to start with a clean sheet of paper. OCare whistled through on the backs of Dem majorities. At this point, the process of explaining why the Dems want what they want will eat up time, and the explanation (should they muster one) will scare the hell out of a lot of people - which may counterbalance any concern about pre-existing conditions.

Remember one key political fact about the young Dems and the so-called Progs: every single one of them wants to be a political hero for the ages. If Pelosi and Co. can't make the case for this, that or the other, then the young donkeys are every bit as likely to tell themselves that they've gained a political opportunity for the future as they are to be outraged that the old white farts in power now didn't get what the Dems are demanding.

I do not, cannot, and would never blame anyone for focusing on the issues. But I'm enough of a political asshat to urge you all to not forget that the fight itself will be chock-full of opportunities to force better legislative decisions.

quote:

I for one do not think that you should pay for schools if you don't have kids. I paid for my kids to go to school. I think other people should pay for their own kids to go to school.

We have not had a kid in school for nearly 60 years, yet we have paid school taxes for every year we have owned property, or rented property. Do I like it? Not especially given the sad state of the education systems in this country.

As I understand it, back in the earlier days of this country schools were local, run and paid for by the villages, towns, etc.

We have had federal and state intervention in America's schools for a long time, and the result is obvious. Having someone in charge who has ideals, plans, etc that do not actually contribute to the actual education of our children is wrong and stupid.

We have national organizations with massive influence on what happens in our schools. Some would call them UNIONS.

Not to mention the rabid resistance to actually having teacher performance evaluated based on what and how much their students actually learn.

And what do school systems do when they want bigger, nicer, and more expensive stuff to add to their empire of dirt? They raise taxes. Let the commoners pay for their extravagance. Forget that they spend a lot of money on indoctrination programs. Forget that it’s all about the numbers. It is about power and greed in the name of “the children”.

No, the taxpayers should not be on this hook.

jljones, I'd like an answer, please. Never- never- do I let such remarks about this forum go unaddressd.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
jljones, I'd like an answer, please. Never- never- do I let such remarks about this forum go unaddressd.

It was sarcasm. Took me a minute to figure out what you we asking.

He was completely right in his assertions.