Fines Proposed for Going Without Health Insurance

jillio said:
Again, you cannot impose it state by state and determine the impact nationally.
Click to expand...
Then determine the impact within each state. If overall medical costs are higher in Texas than Ohio but quality is lower, that's probably a sign that Ohio's way of doing things is better than Texas', and vice versa.

jillio said:
You are aware that the current bill contains protections for doctors from frivolous lawsuits? It is a part of the currently proposed reform. It is but one part of the overall reform.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm aware there are no protections because I've learned that if you say something is in a document, it's not in the document. You would send me on a wild goose chase looking for something I could have sworn wasn't there and then when I find nothing and ask where it is, you'll say "It's in there. Find it" as if that's supposed to make me look stupid for not being able to find it when the real reason I'm stupid is because I bothered looking for it in the first place.
 
darkdog said:
Then determine the impact within each state. If overall medical costs are higher in Texas than Ohio but quality is lower, that's probably a sign that Ohio's way of doing things is better than Texas', and vice versa.

That still does not create nationwide impact. The health care crisis is not a state issue, it is a national issue and must be addressed as such.
Actually, I'm aware there are no protections because I've learned that if you say something is in a document, it's not in the document. You would send me on a wild goose chase looking for something I could have sworn wasn't there and then when I find nothing and ask where it is, you'll say "It's in there. Find it" as if that's supposed to make me look stupid for not being able to find it when the real reason I'm stupid is because I bothered looking for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

It is in the document. It isn't a wild goose chase. All you have to do is access the easily accessed document. It's in there. Did you bother to listen to the address to congress last night? You and kokonut keep bringing up points that have already been debunked. Catch up. And how would you know it isn't in there if you haven't bothered to access and read the document?
 
jillio said:
It is in the document. It isn't a wild goose chase. All you have to do is access the easily accessed document. It's in there. Did you bother to listen to the address to congress last night? You and kokonut keep bringing up points that have already been debunked. Catch up. And how would you know it isn't in there if you haven't bothered to access and read the document?
Click to expand...
Oh, I looked and looked and searched and searched and when I realized you did the exact same thing to me yesterday, I smacked myself on the head and called myself a dumbass. I'm beginning to think maybe you didn't actually read the bill like you said you did. For all I know, you could just be making stuff up, claiming it's in there, and jumping on anyone who dares to ask where a provision is.
 
darkdog said:
Actually, I'm aware there are no protections because I've learned that if you say something is in a document, it's not in the document. You would send me on a wild goose chase looking for something I could have sworn wasn't there and then when I find nothing and ask where it is, you'll say "It's in there. Find it" as if that's supposed to make me look stupid for not being able to find it when the real reason I'm stupid is because I bothered looking for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

ha ha...bingo! Just like the Bill.

You're catching on and realizing the same M.O. pattern.
 
By the way, I forgot to add, I'm glad President Obama is now talking about malpractice reform so I do give him credit for that. We'll see what comes out in the end, but it is a great improvement over "Gosh, the trial lawyers are just too darn scary" like Howard Dean was saying just a weeks ago.
 
darkdog said:
Oh, I looked and looked and searched and searched and when I realized you did the exact same thing to me yesterday, I smacked myself on the head and called myself a dumbass. I'm beginning to think maybe you didn't actually read the bill like you said you did. For all I know, you could just be making stuff up, claiming it's in there, and jumping on anyone who dares to ask where a provision is.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's in there. And several others souces as well.:cool2:
 
kokonut said:
ha ha...bingo! Just like the Bill.

You're catching on and realizing the same M.O. pattern.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: From one who still hasn't read it, and is relying on Rush to tell him what it says.

Go to the source, Mr. Scientist, go to the source. I'm beginning to believe that you are simply afraid to read the actual document.
 
darkdog said:
By the way, I forgot to add, I'm glad President Obama is now talking about malpractice reform so I do give him credit for that. We'll see what comes out in the end, but it is a great improvement over "Gosh, the trial lawyers are just too darn scary" like Howard Dean was saying just a weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Yep. Tort reform is a part of the overall reform.
 
Nope. It's not in HR3200. You're just making stuff up. It looks like they've finally felt enough pressure to add it to the reform.
 
DD, they're desperate to look for bargaining chips to insert into the HR3200 bill to improve it's chances for passage among Blue dogs and Republicans. The Immigration Reform depends on this bill.
 
kokonut said:
DD, they're desperate to look for bargaining chips to insert into the HR3200 bill to improve it's chances for passage among Blue dogs and Republicans. The Immigration Reform depends on this bill.
Click to expand...

:laugh2:
 
darkdog said:
Nope. It's not in HR3200. You're just making stuff up. It looks like they've finally felt enough pressure to add it to the reform.
Click to expand...

The problem with Tort reform is that it's anathema to the American Bar Association, a group who happen to be one of the democrats' biggest supporters by a wide, wide margin! Go figure! Presidential Candidates: Lawyers & Lobbyists Sector Totals, 2008 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Congress is a made up of a bunch of constituency of lawyers, didn’t ya know? Both Obama and Biden are lawyers, too. Do you think a democrat controlled Congress would soon give up their cash cow of lawyers steeped in their own money making lawsuit business? Every time someone mentions that there’s a Tort reform in the bill I’ll show them the Open Secret link on just how chummy and close the lawyers and democrats are. They both lie in the same bed. And that democrats will certaily not alienate their own favorite group of lobbyists unless they know for sure that there are enough loopholes in the bill to begin with. Besides, how can you sue the govt anyways?
 
kokonut said:
The problem with Tort reform is that it's anathema to the American Bar Association, a group who happen to be one of the democrats' biggest supporters by a wide, wide margin! Go figure! Presidential Candidates: Lawyers & Lobbyists Sector Totals, 2008 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Congress is a made up of a bunch of constituency of lawyers, didn’t ya know? Both Obama and Biden are lawyers, too. Do you think a democrat controlled Congress would soon give up their cash cow of lawyers steeped in their own money making lawsuit business? Every time someone mentions that there’s a Tort reform in the bill I’ll show them the Open Secret link on just how chummy and close the lawyers and democrats are. They both lie in the same bed. And that democrats will certaily not alienate their own favorite group of lobbyists unless they know for sure that there are enough loopholes in the bill to begin with. Besides, how can you sue the govt anyways?
Click to expand...

Problem with your argument: tort reform is a portion of the proposal.

And, you have yet to answer the question why it is that tort reform in the states that have enacted it, has not significantly reduced medical costs.
 
I really don't understand why anyone, in any thread, would not want to post the reference of a source for others to check. In academia, in the press, in professional publications, in preaching, etc., people expect to be given the sources of information. It's a fair and reasonable expectation.

If one wanted to protect one's credibility, it would behoove one to provide references without even being asked. By not doing so it would appears that the person can't provide the proof.
 
yeah, make all kinds of snooty claims but don't provide any sources or links to back up the arguments. Sounds like a winner to me.
 
Reba said:
I really don't understand why anyone, in any thread, would not want to post the reference of a source for others to check. In academia, in the press, in professional publications, in preaching, etc., people expect to be given the sources of information. It's a fair and reasonable expectation.

If one wanted to protect one's credibility, it would behoove one to provide references without even being asked. By not doing so it would appears that the person can't provide the proof.
Click to expand...

Already posted the link 2 days ago. People can take advantage of it or not.:dunno2:
 
kokonut said:
yeah, make all kinds of snooty claims but don't provide any sources or links to back up the arguments. Sounds like a winner to me.
Click to expand...

Link has already been posted. You are responsible yourself for not taking the time to read in inform yourself.
 
Back
Top