Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Authors' Hangout

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 06-07-2009, 11:16 PM   #26
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter View Post
In some of the nanny states here in America, the establishment and the bartender can be held libel for a) serving a patron who is obviously intoxicated and sometimes b) allowing an intoxicated patron to drive.

In either case the can legally be sued and because of the laws be found guilty an be liable for damages.
Hell, the father could legally sue me, but the case would also be tossed. As part of the liberal nanny laws that seek to make people not responsible for their own actions, some states have laws such as you describe. Probably MO is one of them, which is why I expressed some doubt.

It would depend on the blood alcohol level. If it is .09, Hancock would have been legally drunk, and the bar would not be liable, because he would have been at a lower level when he was served his last drink. He also may have had a bottle in the SUV with him, which could not be blamed on the bar. In addition, they had nothing to do with his speeding and eschewing a seat belt.

It seemed sort of ridiculous to say he was drunk "involuntarily."
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2009, 11:33 PM   #27
voluptuary_manque
would-be omnigamist
 
voluptuary_manque's Avatar
 
voluptuary_manque is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: preferably between thighs
Posts: 30,836
Nobody is ever drunk "involuntarily". What a crock!
__________________
voluptuary_manque'


My stories

Mr. Vanilla Straight Guy--Safe_Bet

Don’t know if I ever told you, but you were the first person I “met” on Lit. You invited me into Molly’s thread and made me feel at home. I really appreciated that. You also prolly know more about the “doings” of our family than just about anybody else on Lit. That’s cuz you care and are appreciated for being you.--posthumous message from Safe_Bet. And I still care and I still love her. Rest in the Light, Suzy.


You poor, deluded bear--glynndah


<div align=left><a href=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519ZReMcO1L._AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-51,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg target=_blank>http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg</a></div>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-25-2009, 07:41 PM   #28
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 24,845
... and people want to know why healthcare costs are exploding?

Here we have a jury of doctoral-level biologists ( yeah, right! ) who, in their considerable wisdom, experience and judgment, took all of two hours and fifteen minutes to decide this woman's cancer was directly caused by her hormone therapy. Naturally, these experts were empaneled in the ambulance-chaser's nirvana of Philadelphia ( oh, puhhhlease! )



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=agBJdc4xmqcs
( Fair Use Excerpt )
Wyeth’s Prempro Caused Woman’s Cancer, Jury Decides
By Sophia Pearson

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Wyeth’s hormone-replacement therapy drug Prempro caused an Illinois woman’s invasive breast cancer and she deserves $3.7 million, a jury decided in Philadelphia, without yet deciding whether the company was at fault and should pay her.

Jurors deliberated about two hours and 15 minutes before concluding that Wyeth’s drug was a proximate cause of Connie Barton’s breast cancer. Barton, 64, was diagnosed with cancer in 2002, five years after she began taking Prempro to treat menopausal symptoms.

Jurors will hear arguments on Wyeth’s liability and possible punitive damages at a second phase of the trial starting on Oct. 1....

... The court, in a 6-3 vote, said U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a drug doesn’t necessarily bar lawsuits under state law...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2009, 01:40 AM   #29
DeeZire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post
... and people want to know why healthcare costs are exploding?
Most of us already know why healthcare costs are exploding, and it has nothing to do with ambulance chasers.

http://washingtonindependent.com/555...lth-care-costs


Quote:
“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2009, 02:23 AM   #30
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
Most of us already know why healthcare costs are exploding, and it has nothing to do with ambulance chasers.

Quote:
“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion


http://washingtonindependent.com/555...lth-care-costs
You can hardly credit the law professor, who knows where his money comes from. You can't really put much faith in the economist either, since most cases never come to trial, being either dropped or settled out of court. Whatever the outcome, it costs the malpractice insurer and, of course, this cost is passed to the medical provider and, of course, that cost is passed down to the consumers of the medical care.

If it were possible to punish litigants and their shysters when frivolous lawsuits are filed, you would see a great drop in all the associated expenses.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 09:27 AM   #31
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 24,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
Most of us already know why healthcare costs are exploding, and it has nothing to do with ambulance chasers...
Denis Cortese, M.D., President and CEO of the Mayo Clinic ( an organization lauded for its control of healthcare costs ) begs to differ:

http://www.www.cspan.org/Watch/Media...s+Cortese.aspx

The tort bar always trots out the completely bogus claim that the social cost of ambulance chasing is equivalent to the premiums paid for malpractice insurance. This is, of course, both a canard and patently false.

In his address, Dr. Cortese makes a very credible and compelling case that the combination of the cost of practicing defensive medicine and the difficult-to-quantify social cost of professional paranoia are both SUBSTANTIAL and MATERIAL components of healthcare costs.

The only people who benefit from the insane American system of medical torts are the practitioners of legalized extortion and those who believe they hold a ticket in the lottery/theatre of a jury trial. Clearly, you've never practiced medicine or had any contact with those who do.


http://www.www.cspan.org/search.aspx?For=cortese



Last edited by trysail : 09-29-2009 at 09:50 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 12:52 PM   #32
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
 
Katyusha's Avatar
 
Katyusha is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 4,782
OMG I agree with Trysail about something.

Dee...the high cost of healthcare is a very complex web with a bunch of circles in it, ALL of which contribute significantly to the out-of-control costs. Malpractice suits *are,* in fact, an integral part of that; people in this country learned about 20 years ago that lawsuits were a great way to get rich quick, and settlements and awards spun out of control just like the number of lawsuits being filed. Why? "People" in the above statement means people in the general population AND lawyers AND other companies, specifically in the case of malpractice, insurance companies. People discovered they could get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars from companies by suing, and lawyers took on those cases because commissions out of awards like that make their wallets fat.

With the ever-higher awards and the ever-more frequent cases out there, insurance companies had to raise premiums, and raise premiums some more...and there were those companies, like there are companies in every industry, that discovered they could raise their premiums higher than necessary and line their own pockets a bit better because of the lawsuits. So premiums skyrocketed, both out of necessity and out of crooked behavior.

The right to sue was never intended to make people rich. It was intended to punish the company that committed the wrong and give the wronged party some compensation for it. But individuals, lawyers, and insurance companies discovered that suits are a wonderful get-rich-quick scheme, hence all the frivolous lawsuits out there in all areas, not just in medical malpractice. And all those unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits have screwed up this country something awful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 05:11 PM   #33
DeeZire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree we need tort reform, but tort reform is not going to fix our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is flawed from the ground up. We're flushing 30% of our healthcare dollars down the toilet of capitalism. What do we gain by utilizing the free market capitalist model? Let's see: denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, denials for valid claims, canceled policies, exorbitant rates for the self-employed who can't get onto a group plan, and countless deaths in the segment of the population that can't afford insurance, or preventative care. Tort reform does not address any of these issues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 06:39 PM   #34
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
I agree we need tort reform, but tort reform is not going to fix our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is flawed from the ground up. We're flushing 30% of our healthcare dollars down the toilet of capitalism. What do we gain by utilizing the free market capitalist model? Let's see: denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, denials for valid claims, canceled policies, exorbitant rates for the self-employed who can't get onto a group plan, and countless deaths in the segment of the population that can't afford insurance, or preventative care. Tort reform does not address any of these issues.
Out of curiosity, where does that 30% figure come from?
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 07:04 PM   #35
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
 
Katyusha's Avatar
 
Katyusha is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 4,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
I agree we need tort reform, but tort reform is not going to fix our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is flawed from the ground up. We're flushing 30% of our healthcare dollars down the toilet of capitalism. What do we gain by utilizing the free market capitalist model? Let's see: denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, denials for valid claims, canceled policies, exorbitant rates for the self-employed who can't get onto a group plan, and countless deaths in the segment of the population that can't afford insurance, or preventative care. Tort reform does not address any of these issues.
No, it alone will not fix our healthcare system. But we won't fix the healthcare system without also fixing tort law. Like I said in my last post, it's a very complex web with a bunch of circles in it. In order to fully address some of these issues you *must* address others. There is no single root of the heathcare problem here...you can't look at it the way I can look at my employer and say, "Well, this whole mess would be fixed if y'all would just..."

Greedy capitalists are part of the problem, yes. But another part of the problem with ridiculous insurance costs is that hospital costs and specialists' bills are ridiculous, and *that* must be addressed in order to address the high cost of health insurance. In order to fully address the problem of those costs, tort law must be addressed (among many other things).

In short, for true and comprehensive healthcare reform to happen, there is an awful lot that seemingly has little to nothing to do with healthcare that must also be reformed.

Last edited by Katyusha : 09-29-2009 at 07:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 07:38 PM   #36
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
 
R. Richard's Avatar
 
R. Richard is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 10,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by voluptuary_manque View Post
Nobody is ever drunk "involuntarily". What a crock!
Actually, I know of some depraved individuals who have researched drink mix [especially fruit juice] based concoctions with the purpose of getting a date drunk so that they can have sex with her. I would call the woman's state 'involuntary drunk.' Of course, R. Richard has NEVER used such a tactic himself [wire services please copy for immediate release.]
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 07:48 PM   #37
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
 
R. Richard's Avatar
 
R. Richard is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 10,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
I agree we need tort reform, but tort reform is not going to fix our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is flawed from the ground up. We're flushing 30% of our healthcare dollars down the toilet of capitalism. What do we gain by utilizing the free market capitalist model? Let's see: denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, denials for valid claims, canceled policies, exorbitant rates for the self-employed who can't get onto a group plan, and countless deaths in the segment of the population that can't afford insurance, or preventative care. Tort reform does not address any of these issues.
It's not uncommon for a GP doctor to pay $120,000 per year for malpractice insurance, mostly because of predatory attorneys. The doctor's fees have to rise to cover the legal fees. When the doctor's fees rise, the cost of health insurance rises.

You reference, 'denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions.' Allowing pre-existing conditions, is roughly equivalent to allowing someone to buy auto insurance after the accident.

An ass hole who formerly worked for a man I sometimes work for had his insurance cancelled for no more reason than he is five feet two inches tall ... and he weighs something in the vicinity of 400 pounds. The insurance company told him, in effect, "Lose the flab or lose your insurance." He didn't, they did.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2009, 09:29 PM   #38
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard View Post
Actually, I know of some depraved individuals who have researched drink mix [especially fruit juice] based concoctions with the purpose of getting a date drunk so that they can have sex with her. I would call the woman's state 'involuntary drunk.' Of course, R. Richard has NEVER used such a tactic himself [wire services please copy for immediate release.]
Situations you describe do happen sometimes, with spiked drinks that are supposed to be innocuous. But the case in question was certainly not one of them. The man was drinking in a bar, and he knew what he was drinking.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.

Last edited by Boxlicker101 : 02-22-2010 at 06:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 05:29 PM   #39
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
 
Katyusha's Avatar
 
Katyusha is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 4,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard View Post
You reference, 'denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions.' Allowing pre-existing conditions, is roughly equivalent to allowing someone to buy auto insurance after the accident.
The difference here is that many pre-existing conditions people are denied coverage for are things they never had any control over. It's roughly the equivalent of canceling someone's auto insurance after an accident they weren't at fault for.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 07:09 PM   #40
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
You reference, 'denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions.' Allowing pre-existing conditions, is roughly equivalent to allowing someone to buy auto insurance after the accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katyusha View Post
The difference here is that many pre-existing conditions people are denied coverage for are things they never had any control over. It's roughly the equivalent of canceling someone's auto insurance after an accident they weren't at fault for.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with RR here. Whether an illness is the sick person's fault is neither here nor there. Most of them aren't. If somebody, for whatever reason, is uninsured, and he goes to a doctor and finds he has a very serious illness, and the medical bills will be hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it, what would be the honest thing for him to do? Should he buy medical insurance and expect the company to pay the bills? Should the company sell him the insurance?
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 07:34 PM   #41
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
 
Katyusha's Avatar
 
Katyusha is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 4,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with RR here. Whether an illness is the sick person's fault is neither here nor there. Most of them aren't. If somebody, for whatever reason, is uninsured, and he goes to a doctor and finds he has a very serious illness, and the medical bills will be hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it, what would be the honest thing for him to do? Should he buy medical insurance and expect the company to pay the bills? Should the company sell him the insurance?
Should people with serious illnesses and conditions be left to suffer and die, then, because they can't afford their doctors' bills and can't get insurance? The government shouldn't spend that kind of money, insurance companies shouldn't be forced to pay bills that high, and our fictitious patient can't pay the bills himself. Who *should* pay? What's the option? Why are the healthy entitled to insurance, so long as they pay their premiums, but the sick and injured aren't?

Last edited by Katyusha : 09-30-2009 at 07:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 07:53 PM   #42
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with RR here. Whether an illness is the sick person's fault is neither here nor there. Most of them aren't. If somebody, for whatever reason, is uninsured, and he goes to a doctor and finds he has a very serious illness, and the medical bills will be hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it, what would be the honest thing for him to do? Should he buy medical insurance and expect the company to pay the bills? Should the company sell him the insurance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katyusha View Post
Should people with serious illnesses and conditions be left to suffer and die, then, because they can't afford their doctors' bills and can't get insurance? The government shouldn't spend that kind of money, insurance companies shouldn't be forced to pay bills that high, and our fictitious patient can't pay the bills himself. Who *should* pay? What's the option? Why are the healthy entitled to insurance, so long as they pay their premiums, but the sick and injured aren't?
If this hypothetical person is well off, and has eschewed medical insurance because he does not expect to need it, he is probably stuck with the bills. If he is impoverished, Medicaid will probably pick up the tab.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/medicaid.asp

Sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about. There already is a gov. run health insurance, or something very close to it. My personal experiences working with Medicaid are the basis for what I don't like about it.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 10:05 PM   #43
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
 
Katyusha's Avatar
 
Katyusha is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 4,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with RR here. Whether an illness is the sick person's fault is neither here nor there. Most of them aren't. If somebody, for whatever reason, is uninsured, and he goes to a doctor and finds he has a very serious illness, and the medical bills will be hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it, what would be the honest thing for him to do? Should he buy medical insurance and expect the company to pay the bills? Should the company sell him the insurance?



If this hypothetical person is well off, and has eschewed medical insurance because he does not expect to need it, he is probably stuck with the bills. If he is impoverished, Medicaid will probably pick up the tab.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/medicaid.asp

Sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about. There already is a gov. run health insurance, or something very close to it. My personal experiences working with Medicaid are the basis for what I don't like about it.
You're forgetting, there's a huge chunk of the population that is neither wealthy nor impoverished. And a responsible member of the middle class, who has a mortgage that is well within his means to pay and is not buried under a mountain of debt STILL can't afford tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. We in the middle class don't qualify for much in the way of government assistance. For pretty much anything. Medicaid would not pick up any bills at all for my family.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2009, 10:09 PM   #44
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katyusha View Post
You're forgetting, there's a huge chunk of the population that is neither wealthy nor impoverished. And a responsible member of the middle class, who has a mortgage that is well within his means to pay and is not buried under a mountain of debt STILL can't afford tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. We in the middle class don't qualify for much in the way of government assistance. For pretty much anything. Medicaid would not pick up any bills at all for my family.
You're right; we qualify for very little. College loans sometimes, and VA loans for ex-service members, but that's about all. At the same time, most of us have medical insurance where we work or we buy it ourselves.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 12:21 AM   #45
DeeZire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
Sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about. There already is a gov. run health insurance, or something very close to it. My personal experiences working with Medicaid are the basis for what I don't like about it.
FYI Box, the income limit to qualify for Medicaid is $860 per month net (after business expenses for the self-employed.) What the fuss is all about is the fact that if you're self-employed, netting over $860 per month, and you have pre-existing conditions, you can't get health insurance. What would you suggest these people do? ("Suck it up" is not a valid answer.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 12:31 AM   #46
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
FYI Box, the income limit to qualify for Medicaid is $860 per month net (after business expenses for the self-employed.) What the fuss is all about is the fact that if you're self-employed, netting over $860 per month, and you have pre-existing conditions, you can't get health insurance. What would you suggest these people do? ("Suck it up" is not a valid answer.)
The programs are adminstered by individual states, and that limit would not be the same all over. In addition, if it is a huge expense, the income might be waived.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 01:27 AM   #47
DeeZire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
The programs are adminstered by individual states, and that limit would not be the same all over. In addition, if it is a huge expense, the income might be waived.
A non-answer, my friend. What is a self-employed person making over $860 per month in Arizona supposed to do about getting healthcare if they have pre-existing conditions? This is what the fuss is all about, as I'm sure you would agree if you happened to be one of these people.

You may not have noticed, but the unemployment rate is close to 10% nationally. The average weekly unemployment benefit is between $240 and $300 per month, making these people ineligible for Medicaid. What is their recourse? Could you afford health insurance if you were trying to live on $1200 per month? Or rather, could you afford to pay rent, utilities, and food, and also buy health insurance on $1200 per month? What if you had a pre-existing condition and no one would sell you health insurance?

If you still have to ask what all the fuss is about, you need to make an appointment with your doctor and get your head examined.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 02:10 AM   #48
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 30,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire View Post
A non-answer, my friend. What is a self-employed person making over $860 per month in Arizona supposed to do about getting healthcare if they have pre-existing conditions? This is what the fuss is all about, as I'm sure you would agree if you happened to be one of these people.

You may not have noticed, but the unemployment rate is close to 10% nationally. The average weekly unemployment benefit is between $240 and $300 per month, making these people ineligible for Medicaid. What is their recourse? Could you afford health insurance if you were trying to live on $1200 per month? Or rather, could you afford to pay rent, utilities, and food, and also buy health insurance on $1200 per month? What if you had a pre-existing condition and no one would sell you health insurance?

If you still have to ask what all the fuss is about, you need to make an appointment with your doctor and get your head examined.
I have no idea what the requirements or limitations are in specific states, and I'm not going to look it up. It might be included in the link I posted or you might google "Medicaid" to find out or to learn where you can find out

All I mean is that the idea of gov. run medical insurance isn't as new as some seem to think. I worked for Medicaid 35 years ago, and they weren't new even then.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 02:34 AM   #49
DeeZire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
Out of curiosity, where does that 30% figure come from?
Sorry. I should have said 34%

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110215547.htm

Quote:
Of the total insurance premiums used to cover hospital and physician care, this research showed that 21 percent is spent on insurance administration. Another 13 percent is used to cover other administrative tasks. Only 66 percent is used for patient care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
All I mean is that the idea of gov. run medical insurance isn't as new as some seem to think. I worked for Medicaid 35 years ago, and they weren't new even then.
So you're saying you're okay with a public option for healthcare? Pardon me for misconstruing your posts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2009, 08:15 AM   #50
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 24,845
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_6Mxz6ewOfY

( Fair Use Excerpt )
Public Plan to Have ‘Small’ Impact on Health Premiums, CBO Says
By Brian Faler

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- A proposed government-run health- insurance option would probably have only a small effect on private insurance premiums, according to Congress’s official budget scorekeepers.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today that a draft of the so-called public option approved July 15 by a Senate panel would add some competitive pressure in insurance markets served by relatively few companies.

It would probably only have a “small” impact on private insurance rates because the legislation would require a government program to be self-sufficient, meaning it would have to rely on premium revenue rather than tax dollars, the agency said. Such a plan would probably attract a “substantial minority” of people enrolling, the agency said...

******

“Premiums for the public plan would typically be roughly comparable to the average premiums of private plans,” said the CBO letter...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.