New U.S. Healthcare Reform, No New Business for Insurance Co

[Greed and Death]

So they bill your insurer, and your insurer sues to bill someone else ? End result still seems to say your attacker is the one stuck with the bill.

Nope, your claim still does not reflect reality. Here's why:

1) Suing your attacker is not the same as billing your attacker. The delay in getting a settlement from a suit, even supposing the suit is successful in getting anything, means that you may still be on the hook for a share of the costs.

Your insurer will be, and if there is a pending lawsuit I doubt they are going to raise your rates about it right away.
Your insurer will also be the one suing on your behalf. If you have no insurer seems the hospital will sue on your behalf.

2) Not all attackers will be sue-able. They may have nothing to sue for. Or they may beat the rap, in which case, there is no grounds on which to sue them. In either of those cases, you and your insurer (which means just you in the long run) are on the hook.

Incorrect, You can be found not guilty of a crime, but still be found liable. For instance OJ Simpson not guilty of Murder, the victims families still sued him for every penny he was worth.

You cannot make up a hypothetical about something that you think might happen and cite that as an answer to an argument, when in fact, it is clear that your hypothetical only seldom applies to reality and has so many ways in which it can fail to work even when it does apply.

Even if we had nationally socialized insurance we should still hold the attacker monetarily liable for the assault.

[Grave_n_idle]

Or...not. That is Ron Paul's website...

Ah. So much becomes clear....

[Grave_n_idle]

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

I would agree on that. Such a shame they suck at their jobs so bad.

they make a pretty solid opposition party.
they and the Blue dogs have already pushed the deadline back to October for a health bill.

Yep. And people dying is a good thing. Go Blue Dogs.

[Greed and Death]

I would agree on that. Such a shame they suck at their jobs so bad.

they make a pretty solid opposition party.
they and the Blue dogs have already pushed the deadline back to October for a health bill.

Yep. And people dying is a good thing. Go Blue Dogs.

The party Whip tried that. Then threatened to cut off their funds for reelection.

Then the blue dogs reminded the party whip they are largely in contested districts so without funds they are giving the seats to the republican party. And to drive home the point the blue dogs have elected not to put any funds into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... E6FB9129B8

[Muravyets]

Your insurer will be, and if there is a pending lawsuit I doubt they are going to raise your rates about it right away.

Of course they won't raise your rate right away. They can't change your premium until your policy renews. Then the amount of increase will be decided by lots of factors, one of which will be the claim that was made for your treatment.

Your insurer will also be the one suing on your behalf. If you have no insurer seems the hospital will sue on your behalf.

No, they fucking won't. How many times do you have to be told this? If you really think that your personal experience that one time you got into a bar fight and pretended to be poor at the hospital is the standard operating procedure for all hospitals, then show me some data that says that the 60% of personal bankruptcies driven by medical costs in 2008 was due to people being sued for other people's treatment -- or anything that backs up your assertion.

Incorrect, You can be found not guilty of a crime, but still be found liable. For instance OJ Simpson not guilty of Murder, the victims families still sued him for every penny he was worth.

And you can back up some data on the number of times this happens, too, if you're going to insist that your bullshit little anecdote is the SOP of hospitals.

Even if we had nationally socialized insurance we should still hold the attacker monetarily liable for the assault.

[/quote][/quote]
See above, and see my earlier posts for why that doesn't let you off the hook anyway. (Yes, I know I'm asking you to read the same points you ignored the first time.)

[Grave_n_idle]

they make a pretty solid opposition party.
they and the Blue dogs have already pushed the deadline back to October for a health bill.

Yep. And people dying is a good thing. Go Blue Dogs.

The party Whip tried that. Then threatened to cut off their funds for reelection.

Then the blue dogs reminded the party whip they are largely in contested districts so without funds they are giving the seats to the republican party. And to drive home the point the blue dogs have elected not to put any funds into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... E6FB9129B8

Right. Blue Dogs will play political games while real people experience real suffering.

That's not a virtue.

[Greed and Death]

Your insurer will be, and if there is a pending lawsuit I doubt they are going to raise your rates about it right away.

Of course they won't raise your rate right away. They can't change your premium until your policy renews. Then the amount of increase will be decided by lots of factors, one of which will be the claim that was made for your treatment.

Your insurer will also be the one suing on your behalf. If you have no insurer seems the hospital will sue on your behalf.

No, they fucking won't. How many times do you have to be told this? If you really think that your personal experience that one time you got into a bar fight and pretended to be poor at the hospital is the standard operating procedure for all hospitals, then show me some data that says that the 60% of personal bankruptcies driven by medical costs in 2008 was due to people being sued for other people's treatment -- or anything that backs up your assertion.

How many of those bankruptcy are from emergency rooms visits as opposed to expensive long drawn out care ?

Incorrect, You can be found not guilty of a crime, but still be found liable. For instance OJ Simpson not guilty of Murder, the victims families still sued him for every penny he was worth.

And you can back up some data on the number of times this happens, too, if you're going to insist that your bullshit little anecdote is the SOP of hospitals.
[/quote]
You said you would have no standing to sue if someone got by in criminal court(assuming you mean not guilty). Criminal charges works on beyond a reasonable doubt, Civil court works on preponderance of the evidence. two different standards. You can sue even if someone is not guilty on a criminal level.Now your trying to shift your argument back to SOP of the hospitals

Even if we had nationally socialized insurance we should still hold the attacker monetarily liable for the assault.

[/quote][/quote]
See above, and see my earlier posts for why that doesn't let you off the hook anyway. (Yes, I know I'm asking you to read the same points you ignored the first time.)[/quote]
perhaps if you didnt change so many of your points around.

[Greed and Death]

double post

[Greed and Death]

Yep. And people dying is a good thing. Go Blue Dogs.

The party Whip tried that. Then threatened to cut off their funds for reelection.

Then the blue dogs reminded the party whip they are largely in contested districts so without funds they are giving the seats to the republican party. And to drive home the point the blue dogs have elected not to put any funds into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... E6FB9129B8

Right. Blue Dogs will play political games while real people experience real suffering.

That's not a virtue.

Rushing legislation that needs to be thought out and debated is also not virtue.

[Grave_n_idle]

Rushing legislation that needs to be thought out and debated is also not virtue.

Rushing a half-decent bill through, and perfecting it AFTER it has started doing good would be.

What has been done is dishonest - people quibbled and debated, and attached proviso after proviso, and quid pro quo after quid pro quo - whilst, all the time, still intending to do nothing to support.

It was a sham of political discourse.

[Muravyets]

How many of those bankruptcy are from emergency rooms visits as opposed to expensive long drawn out care ?

What possible difference could that make? If someone cracks your skull hard enough, you're likely to need both. Seriously, it is not fun to go through these thing where you're just trying to make stuff up as you go along.

You said you would have no standing to sue if someone got by in criminal court(assuming you mean not guilty). Criminal charges works on beyond a reasonable doubt, Civil court works on preponderance of the evidence. two different standards. You can sue even if someone is not guilty on a criminal level.Now your trying to shift your argument back to SOP of the hospitals

1) I cited that as something that sometimes happens, making it not certain that the attacker will be a source of payment, and thus citing as one of the reasons why that is not hospital SOP.

2) Don't pull any moving goalposts bullshit on me. My argument has always been that it is not SOP for hospitals to bill anyone other than the party they provided care to. By "shifting it back" to use your misleading words, I am merely trying to make you address the request for you to back up your statement.

perhaps if you didnt change so many of your points around.

I don't. You're the one trying to weasel around something here.

[Greed and Death]

Rushing legislation that needs to be thought out and debated is also not virtue.

Rushing a half-decent bill through, and perfecting it AFTER it has started doing good would be.

What has been done is dishonest - people quibbled and debated, and attached proviso after proviso, and quid pro quo after quid pro quo - whilst, all the time, still intending to do nothing to support.

It was a sham of political discourse.

but, My state might not get the provision it wants if try and get those in afterward.

[Grave_n_idle]

Rushing legislation that needs to be thought out and debated is also not virtue.

Rushing a half-decent bill through, and perfecting it AFTER it has started doing good would be.

What has been done is dishonest - people quibbled and debated, and attached proviso after proviso, and quid pro quo after quid pro quo - whilst, all the time, still intending to do nothing to support.

It was a sham of political discourse.

but, My state might not get the provision it wants if try and get those in afterward.

And it won't get any provisions if it's representatives spend their whole time protecting their vote or placing their own ideology over successful passage.

[Greed and Death]

Rushing a half-decent bill through, and perfecting it AFTER it has started doing good would be.

What has been done is dishonest - people quibbled and debated, and attached proviso after proviso, and quid pro quo after quid pro quo - whilst, all the time, still intending to do nothing to support.

It was a sham of political discourse.

but, My state might not get the provision it wants if try and get those in afterward.

And it won't get any provisions if it's representatives spend their whole time protecting their vote or placing their own ideology over successful passage.

But the provisions I want is the provision for each state to run their own system, whatever that might be.

[Grave_n_idle]

But the provisions I want is the provision for each state to run their own system, whatever that might be.

Which is irrelevant is your just going to obstruct anyway?

[Greed and Death]

But the provisions I want is the provision for each state to run their own system, whatever that might be.

Which is irrelevant is your just going to obstruct anyway?

It is just if you start a national system with out the states having the option to begin their own system, then the states' systems will be completely. So what we need a provision that the money collected from each state can be returned to it if the state elects to run its own system.

[Grave_n_idle]

But the provisions I want is the provision for each state to run their own system, whatever that might be.

Which is irrelevant is your just going to obstruct anyway?

It is just if you start a national system with out the states having the option to begin their own system, then the states' systems will be completely. So what we need a provision that the money collected from each state can be returned to it if the state elects to run its own system.

There must be a word missing in there somewhere... what will be completely what?

[Greed and Death]

Which is irrelevant is your just going to obstruct anyway?

It is just if you start a national system with out the states having the option to begin their own system, then the states' systems will be completely. So what we need a provision that the money collected from each state can be returned to it if the state elects to run its own system.

There must be a word missing in there somewhere... what will be completely what?

sorry withdrawals from meds screwing with my typing ability.
Saying if you don't give the states the option of running their own health systems from the get go, they may never be able to run their own systems. It will be very hard for them to start their own systems, if the federal government has already put its system in place in the state's jurisdiction. Besides it shouldn't matter if it is passed now or in October as the bill says it goes into effect at the year of passage +1. So either way it would start in January.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

What about education? Why should I pay for some other kid's education? Hmm?

Don't give them ideas!

But I'm good at it.

[Greed and Death]

What about education? Why should I pay for some other kid's education? Hmm?

Don't give them ideas!

But I'm good at it.

Not relevant states run the education system not the federal government.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Don't give them ideas!

But I'm good at it.

Not relevant states run the education system not the federal government.

Until 'No Child Left Behind' when the federal government set requirements on the state's education requirements and then withdrew the funds they promised the states to help them meet those requirements so instead of more children meeting minimum education standards, you have education standards lowering to meet the requirements.

This is what happens when the government mandates the states to do something without providing the ability to do so.

Now in the case of Healthcare, my biggest problem with public systems in each state instead of one federal system is that each state would have their own legislatures voting on what would and wouldn't be covered. Now I don't know if you oticed, but we have some real wackos in state legislatures. We'll get states that don't cover birth control pills and states that don't cover abortions and states that don't cover HIV treatments and medications and all sorts of wackiness like that. I think it's amazing that the people who don't want politicians running healthcare are often the most likely to use their own political agenda to dictate the terms of it.

[Greed and Death]

But I'm good at it.

Not relevant states run the education system not the federal government.

Until 'No Child Left Behind' when the federal government set requirements on the state's education requirements and then withdrew the funds they promised the states to help them meet those requirements so instead of more children meeting minimum education standards, you have education standards lowering to meet the requirements.

This is what happens when the government mandates the states to do something without providing the ability to do so.

Now in the case of Healthcare, my biggest problem with public systems in each state instead of one federal system is that each state would have their own legislatures voting on what would and wouldn't be covered. Now I don't know if you oticed, but we have some real wackos in state legislatures. We'll get states that don't cover birth control pills and states that don't cover abortions and states that don't cover HIV treatments and medications and all sorts of wackiness like that. I think it's amazing that the people who don't want politicians running healthcare are often the most likely to use their own political agenda to dictate the terms of it.

No child left behind is a stupid piece of legislation over all. Good intentions, but clearly written by people with no idea what the problems facing our schools are.

Except we would give the states the funding to provide health care. Given I would use my state legislature to declare Texas a Private health care state, and refund the money to those taxed by the federal government.

[Ryadn]

I would have hoped for a filibuster against the Iraq war from the democrats. I was kinda shocked when that didn't materialized. Given Bush likely would have gone anyways, but if that had happened the democrats would likely be at 70 or 75 in the senate today.
And health care would have been passed in February.

That entire Congress sold out this country. If I'd had my way, not one of them would be in politics now. The fact that many got reelected makes me despair of Americans.

Hey, hey, hey! Don't be so hasty. There would be ONE still in politics---Barbara Lee. She did Cali proud.

[Greed and Death]

I would have hoped for a filibuster against the Iraq war from the democrats. I was kinda shocked when that didn't materialized. Given Bush likely would have gone anyways, but if that had happened the democrats would likely be at 70 or 75 in the senate today.
And health care would have been passed in February.

That entire Congress sold out this country. If I'd had my way, not one of them would be in politics now. The fact that many got reelected makes me despair of Americans.

Hey, hey, hey! Don't be so hasty. There would be ONE still in politics---Barbara Lee. She did Cali proud.

She was the only democrat with Balls in 2003. She had great big brass ones at that.

[Ryadn]

Until 'No Child Left Behind' when the federal government set requirements on the state's education requirements and then withdrew the funds they promised the states to help them meet those requirements so instead of more children meeting minimum education standards, you have education standards lowering to meet the requirements.

This is what happens when the government mandates the states to do something without providing the ability to do so.

To be fair, even with the money it's a pretty crap bill---I am rarely in favor of pandering to tests (even though standardized testing was generally the best two weeks of every school year). But with the money, most of us could have probably worked around it. Without it... well, kindergarten goes back up to 30-to-1 this year, and meanwhile Sark and I are jobless.