What I hope the Supreme Court does to health care.

[blackascoal]

It looks like we might get a rulling from the Supreme Court today, or some time next week.

I hope they strike the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law alone. (I doubt they will, I suspect they will strike the mandate, then tinker with the law saying some cannot survive without the mandate).

Then I hope there would be serious public pressure to correct the law the way I argued it should have been in the first place, with a PUBLIC OPTION.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law completly, (unlikely in my opinion) then we will have new legislation and a new health care bill because only 19% of the populace want things to go back to the way they were.

I personally do not want to lose my heath care!

It is indeed unfortunate that Americans now have to depend on a conservative Supreme Court to do what Obama should have done in the first place.

Start from here .. Obama is a corporatist, and he delivered exactly what a corporatist would deliver .. A healhcare plan written by the health insurance industry that makes them the biggest beneficiaries of the bill, not the American people.

What I hope the Supreme Court will deliver is some balls and courage to Americans on the left.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just a quick request... if you could keep your responses separate from mine, it allows me to hit reply w/quote and still be able to see your responses and thus answer them. Just a request... you are free of course to do as you wish.

Capping the award will affect the injured or the family if personal injury, suffering or other awards are limited. There is no assigned value to life.

Those two sentences make no sense together. The second one is correct. There is no assigned value to life. Trying to pay to replace the life won't work. thus, in my opinion, the cap should be set to replace the income at a rate of 1-4 times of the departed up to a cap of say $4mm (because with the $5mm you can create an income stream of $200k for life without ever eating into principal. If injured, the cap will obviously need to be set in accordance to how the injury offsets the ability to work.

Without safeguards, yes, I am.

Well, that is ridiculous. There are already laws against forming a cartel or colluding on prices.

I could be equally silly and say get rid of the Defense Department and that will save even more. Are you still incapable of having an adult conversation?

Funny that comment got you so upset... my comment was in response to your 'get rid of part D' and that will save money comment. Which is equally silly. Of course getting rid of an entitlement all together will save money. As will eliminating Defense or Education etc... It was a silly comment on your part, which is what I was trying to point out to you.

Yes, and the government will work to keep those fees, copays, etc., down. {Look at the VA model of efficiency) as opposed to a for-profit hospital, insurance company, drug company, or DME supplier raping the customer. Have you been in the hospital lately?

No, I am single and in good health. I go to Kaiser for my annual physical and that is pretty much it. As for the government... who decides what procedures are covered and who qualifies for each procedure? Why would you have a copay with the government? Isn't the whole idea to make it 'free'? Don't copays hurt the poor and middle income more than the rich?

 

[Jarod]

Is that the case regardless of whether or not their are caps Jarod? Does anything change in that regard other than the cap?



Yes, do you understand that if there are caps on awards that the doctors will not have to buy policies that have as high a limit as they do today?

And so they will also not have to be as carefull, becuase they wont risk anything while those injured will not be able to recover what there true damages are!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And so they will also not have to be as carefull, becuase they wont risk anything while those injured will not be able to recover what there true damages are!

They still have risk Jarod. They still have black marks against their records, they still would pay malpractice premiums etc... That does not change.

What are you referring to when you say the injured won't be able to recover damages? No one is saying that Jarod. They will still be able to collect enough to replace income, take care of treatment etc... You just won't have unlimited punitive damages at the whim of juries.

 

[Howey]

Just a quick request... if you could keep your responses separate from mine, it allows me to hit reply w/quote and still be able to see your responses and thus answer them. Just a request... you are free of course to do as you wish.

Sometimes I use my not-so-smart phone to reply.

Those two sentences make no sense together. The second one is correct. There is no assigned value to life. Trying to pay to replace the life won't work. thus, in my opinion, the cap should be set to replace the income at a rate of 1-4 times of the departed up to a cap of say $4mm (because with the $5mm you can create an income stream of $200k for life without ever eating into principal. If injured, the cap will obviously need to be set in accordance to how the injury offsets the ability to work.

I'll agree some kind of cap is needed on punitive awards. But by saying, "replace the income at a rate of 1-4 times of the departed up to a cap of say $4mm (because with the $5mm you can create an income stream of $200k for life without ever eating into principal", you are assigning a value to life.

Well, that is ridiculous. There are already laws against forming a cartel or colluding on prices.

Sure, like it doesn't happen every day. Ask the airlines. I'll repeat this since the message isn't getting through: The insurance companies are in the business of making money for themselves. They don't care about the patient. If an insurer in Florida was allowed to issue a policy based upon a substandard company's policy in Oklahoma, they would. At the same price.

You just won't have unlimited punitive damages at the whim of juries.

There is no such thing as unlimited punitive damages.

I don't know what the highest punitive damage ever is...but I do know judges have a bad habit of reducing them.

My thought? Make the punitive damage strong enough to hurt the company or put them out of business. Like this one:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/jury-awards-henderson-couple--500-million-in-hepatitis-trial-93130004.html

 

[Phantasmal]

Howey: Sometimes I use my not-so-smart phone


Bwaaaahahaha, I feel ya!

 

[christiefan915]

$500 billion in fraud within Medicare that Obama identified...

I am sure you think government services are outstandingly efficient. But they are not. They are inefficient by and large.

If Obama identified $500 billion in Medicare fraud, that's not a bad thing. It shows someone's doing their job, and the next thing is to prosecute the crooks who committed the fraud. I'm not sure how you're tying this to government inefficiency.

 

[christiefan915]

Actually Medicare is highly efficient in that it has given millions of Senior helthcare they could never, otherwise afford. They are also reducing fraud, Alaska's program has little fraud.

I would love for you to speak with my daughter on the subject matter.

I'm not grasping their arguments. The fraud isn't being committed by the government but by the doctors, right? Or am I simplifying it?

 

[Howey]

I'm not grasping their arguments. The fraud isn't being committed by the government but by the doctors, right? Or am I simplifying it?

No, you're right. Doctors, hospitals, insurers...and of course, Rick Scott.

The government wants to stem the fraud. Lobbyists are happy with things the way they are. That's why the lobbyists financed the Republicans war on Obamacare with misinformation and lies.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sometimes I use my not-so-smart phone to reply.

No worries then. My smart phone is too often a dumbass.

I'll agree some kind of cap is needed on punitive awards. But by saying, "replace the income at a rate of 1-4 times of the departed up to a cap of say $4mm (because with the $5mm you can create an income stream of $200k for life without ever eating into principal", you are assigning a value to life.

No, there can be no assessment on the life itself. There can be an assessment on what that life provided in terms of income while here.

Sure, like it doesn't happen every day. Ask the airlines. I'll repeat this since the message isn't getting through: The insurance companies are in the business of making money for themselves. They don't care about the patient. If an insurer in Florida was allowed to issue a policy based upon a substandard company's policy in Oklahoma, they would. At the same price.

Look at the airlines. When they feel there is peak travel (ie... demand is increasing) they increase their prices. When they feel there is inadequate demand they reduce their prices (as we are seeing right now for the fall travel). Hence, they price based on demand.

There is no such thing as unlimited punitive damages.

lol... true, it is not truly unlimited. They won't award $160k for medical expenses and $2.7mm dollars punitive or anything to an idiot for spilling hot (its hot?? no fucking way) coffee on herself.

I don't know what the highest punitive damage ever is...but I do know judges have a bad habit of reducing them.

My thought? Make the punitive damage strong enough to hurt the company or put them out of business. Like this one:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/jury-awards-henderson-couple--500-million-in-hepatitis-trial-93130004.html

this case makes me sick (no pun intended)

This is precisely why we need caps. When we have lawyers who think like this we end up labels on coffee saying 'this is hot dumbass'. We take away common sense as a point. Those nurses reusing vials were fucking retarded. How long have we known that diseases can be transferred via the blood? The stupidity gets the company hit with a $500mm charge? Bullshit.

 

[CanceledB]

No, you're right. Doctors, hospitals, insurers...and of course, Rick Scott.

The government wants to stem the fraud. Lobbyists are happy with things the way they are. That's why the lobbyists financed the Republicans war on Obamacare with misinformation and lies.

Worth the 7-point font.

 

[christiefan915]

Medicare is a type of insurance, you improperly call it an entitlement.

No kidding, huh! That line on the paycheck that reads "Medicare Tax', i.e. our premium for being in the program.

 

[christiefan915]

Again... if it pays the bare bones then you have what you need. I think it is a crappy option, but it is something that I can see working. A set level... There is zero reason I need to pay for your boob job or (for that matter) you for my penile implant. There is zero "need" for that.

Also, the thread isn't about Medicare, the thread is about Obamacare and Jarod's hopes.

As far as I know, no insurance company pays for boob jobs unless it's reconstructive surgery, apparently they will pay for penile implants.

 

[Phantasmal]

Discussion currently, with the person I quoted (and in the post I quoted to begin the exchange), was about single payer. Sometimes you need to pay attention.

Then I also put quote marks around the word "entitlements" for a reason.

You and your quote marks, like it suppose to mean something to anyone but you . I still scratch my head at your quote marks.

 

[Phantasmal]

Again... if it pays the bare bones then you have what you need. I think it is a crappy option, but it is something that I can see working. A set level... There is zero reason I need to pay for your boob job or (for that matter) you for my penile implant. There is zero "need" for that.

Also, the thread isn't about Medicare, the thread is about Obamacare and Jarod's hopes.

Not always Damo, I sat next to a woman in chemo who was told she couldn't get her shot of the medication which diminished bone ache after the chemo, she was devastated! I wanted so badly to give her mine, but that would have been insurance fraud.

 

[Phantasmal]

I'm not grasping their arguments. The fraud isn't being committed by the government but by the doctors, right? Or am I simplifying it?

My daughter says, doctors, medical suppliers, pharma, recipients. The problem was with how prior claims were handled, that has now been changed. She says the government is actively trying to reduce fraud.

 

[christiefan915]

My daughter says, doctors, medical suppliers, pharma, recipients. The problem was with how prior claims were handled, that has now been changed. She says the government is actively trying to reduce fraud.

Thanks, what I expected. IOW the fraud starts with the recipients, not the government.

 

[CanceledB]

Thanks, what I expected. IOW the fraud starts with the recipients, not the government.

EXACTLY.

The whores for the insurance industry would like you to believe otherwise - and look how effective they were at almost convincing you?

Almost.

 

[Jarod]

Sometimes I use my not-so-smart phone to reply.



I'll agree some kind of cap is needed on punitive awards. But by saying, "replace the income at a rate of 1-4 times of the departed up to a cap of say $4mm (because with the $5mm you can create an income stream of $200k for life without ever eating into principal", you are assigning a value to life.



Sure, like it doesn't happen every day. Ask the airlines. I'll repeat this since the message isn't getting through: The insurance companies are in the business of making money for themselves. They don't care about the patient. If an insurer in Florida was allowed to issue a policy based upon a substandard company's policy in Oklahoma, they would. At the same price.




There is no such thing as unlimited punitive damages.

I don't know what the highest punitive damage ever is...but I do know judges have a bad habit of reducing them.

My thought? Make the punitive damage strong enough to hurt the company or put them out of business. Like this one:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/jury-awards-henderson-couple--500-million-in-hepatitis-trial-93130004.html

Okay so now you are talking about Punative Damages. That is an entirely different animal all together.

Punatitive damages, in most states including Florida, require that you have done something intentional or that would knowingly harm someone. You really belive that we should cap awards against people who tried to harm people?

 

[Phantasmal]

Would anyone be interested in my daughter invading the Forum for a Medicare question and answer session?

Now you can't beat her up, because I would have to go Sarah Palin pit bull on you, but she is very knowledgable, even received a reward this month in Atlanta for her outstanding service. I am very proud of her, she is an amazingly compassionate person, perfect or her job.