93EXCivic wrote: my post ... Kate Upton... useful...
No argument here.
93EXCivic wrote: my post ... Kate Upton... useful...
No argument here.
Cone_Junky wrote:Bobzilla wrote: I don't understand the blind hatred cone exhibits here. I really don't get it. Both parties have berkeleyed this up beyond all recognition.How is that not visible to anyone with a single working brain cell?All that judgement and you are taking the high road eh? Troll. If you can click your two brain cells together maybe you would have read that I said the D's screw E36 M3 up too. I am asking you to reel in all the blind hatred YOU have for Obama and realize it's the R's responsible for THIS SHUTDOWN. Don't worry, there is plenty of stuff to be blamed on Obama, this one is owned by the R's though. Who put non-related amendments to delay the ACA in THIS BILL? Who wants to try to repeal ACA after failing for Fifty-something times prior? Who thought that this bill would go anywhere with demands they KNOW would not pass? Who has enough votes to makes this pass but their "leader" won't let them even vote on it?
No blind hatred here. They're all a bunch of berkeleyups. Which is what I've said from the beginning. Your inability to assess any blame to anyone but ignorant, bible thumping, hypocritical conservative hilljack R's that got old.
ok bob, in your opinion you're way smarter, so why not act it and STFU instead of responding?
Why does everyone have to be so rude lately? I mean, EVERYONE is being rude to EVERYONE else lately. Can't we all just take a Xanny and relax?
I plan on retiring next September and called to get a "print out". I had three specific questions, one was about buying back my military time so it counts toward my current retirement system.
"I'm sorry sir, I cannot answer that question".
OK, is there someone I can contact to get the answer?
"I'm sorry sir, due to the Gov't shutdown, we are not allowed to answer questions regarding that subject".
What? You're here, on the phone already; it's part of my future and you can pick and choose responses?
"I'm sorry sir, is there anything else I can help you with today?"
Ma'am, you son gets blown up by a large artillery training mishap, you have questions. I'm the guy doing the investigation, would that answer be acceptable?
Click.....
Bobzilla wrote: Why does everyone have to be so rude lately? I mean, EVERYONE is being rude to EVERYONE else lately. Can't we all just take a Xanny and relax?
I usually get blistered for oversights, lately it's been worse. Everyone call in sick, get a hooker and a bottle of wine....
You have to give your credit score for the ACA exchanges?
http://m.clickorlando.com/news/credit-scores-impacting-new-affordable-care-act-insurance-plans/-/16721250/22341034/-/fajipoz/-/index.html
Go to 1:45 in the vid.
RX Reven' wrote: First, we implement tort reform. I don’t believe anyone has contested the estimate that 15% to 18% of all medical spending is defensive IE: Run tests, proscribe meds, etc. that aren’t needed just to minimize the risk of being sued. So, no more punitive damages…if somebody screws up, they’d still be fully liable for lost wages, pain & suffering but no more throwing on a few extra million to “teach them a lesson”. Next, we redirect the freed up capital and resources to expand Medicaid to provide a social safety net that would be the envy of the world. Problem solved in 99 words rather than the 20,000 pages of power grabbing, vote pandering bull E36 M3 known as the ACA.
So you have your beloved tort reform and people who suffer due to slap dash care are now unable to sue for sufficient cash to care for themselves. All due to no fault of their own.
Where does all that "Freed up capital" come from? Hospitals? Doctors? The insurers of those hospitals and doctors? I'm assuming those are the typical targets of this type of litigation. How do we extract that "freed up capital" from the Insurance companies then? Via taxes?
Let's not even address that now Health ins companies can now kick you from insurance when you need it since Obamacare is evidently repealed via your scenario. Also, Health ins companies can again deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions like adult acne or headaches.
Your silver bullet turns into a flying turd upon further analysis.
4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Im going to say this once more, and then politely remove myself for a while. The problem with this bill as I see it is this: ACA does nothing to resolve the root issue: Health care/coverage is too expensive. ACA does NOTHING to address the outrageous costs of medical care (costs driven up by *shocker* more insurance). It does make it easier to get coverage for those who historically had difficulties accessing it. However, it does this by moving the costs from those aided by ACA - those receiving the (now subsidized) coverage, to those who already had access to (monopolized) coverage.
I'm not trying to piss you off here. I was asking a valid question about what you might've meant in regards to your statements. I'm sorry if that offended you. I was trying to seek understanding.
The ACA is trying to address rising health care costs by limiting:
This proves as untrue your statement that "ACA does NOTHING to address the outrageous costs of medical care".
It is true that people are facing a charge if they opt out of buying health insurance. Just like if they opt out of buying auto insurance. Reason being, we'll all end up paying for them anyway as we have in the past. If someone doesn't have insurance they'll be taken care of via public assistance. You and I pay public assistance. Also, most of this care is of the most expensive type, emergency type care. If we can get these folks insured and they receive scheduled doctor's visits or even have access before a problem becomes a crisis we will all benefit from the lowered cost of the care they would receive anyway.
Again, this is not a perfect system. It is the one alternative being offered as no other system is even on the table at this point. This ship has sailed. You can stand at the rail and cry while the shore recedes into the distance or your can take the ropes and help us all sail this b!tch to where ever it's going.
Exclusive House, Senate Gyms Remain Open During Shutdown
Keep in mind, we do have a Royal class that enjoys privileges you and I are denied. The minute they have to live like us, will be the minute things change.
In reply to Xceler8x:
Wouldn't a simple law stating insurance companies could not refuse coverage or drop people make more sense.
FWIW, the crazy amounts of money from medical malpractice generally comes from the Doctor/Hospitals "Medical Malpractice Insurance" and I believe that insurance is salty salty salty. Its too easy to sue in this nation, and don't get me wrong, part of the time it is justified(and are generally small figure settlements) but the ones we hear about are frivilous(sp?) claims and amounts of compensation.
Just got my figures yesterday with how my coverage is changing. I am much less than pleased. 
My employer is absorbing the bulk of the cost(the plan has nearly doubled) and I will pay almost double what I did before.....my deductibles have doubled, but the worst thing is I am losing VSP and Dental coverage(cannot afford the extra 3k a year they want for it) So, I believe at this point, I have every right to be excessively pissed off by this.
Yeah my plan got E36 M3ter this year but the company did a pretty good job of not making it hurt more.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
The only thing thats going to hurt more is the fact I have dental visits scheduled and I have corrected vision......yay out of pocket which means so much for fun.
yamaha wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Wouldn't a simple law stating insurance companies could not refuse coverage or drop people make more sense. FWIW, the crazy amounts of money from medical malpractice generally comes from the Doctor/Hospitals "Medical Malpractice Insurance" and I believe that insurance is salty salty salty. Its too easy to sue in this nation, and don't get me wrong, part of the time it is justified(and are generally small figure settlements) but the ones we hear about are frivilous(sp?) claims and amounts of compensation. Just got my figures yesterday with how my coverage is changing. I am much less than pleased.
I'm sorry to hear that chief. Since the ACA just went into effect this plan year may not reflect any positive or negative outcome due to it. I do know that most employer provided programs have cut benefits and increased deductibles. My wife works for a healthcare company and their plan is surprisingly stingy.
In reply to Xceler8x:
This is ACA compliant through BCBS, so I fail to see this being an "Affordable" thing......my former policy was substantially better and cost half as much. So the better question is, will we ever see a reduction in costs now that they have us by the balls? I doubt it, once amounts are charged, they rarely become reduced.
I'm soooo glad that people in my position have to suffer while others reap the benifits. [/sarcasm] This all also scuttled my request to go to full 40/hr week and the pay increse that comes with that.
In reply to yamaha:
But think of the children, they just want to help the starving children! berk it. Im out. I hear Beirut is becoming a comparatively nice place to live.
In reply to 4cylndrfury:
Screw the children, think of how the ACA killed Paul's dream of buying a new Fiesta ST next year.....
Now remember, nothing bad can come of the ACA. Only bad people doing bad things can happen. IT's written perfectly.
I won't lie, the wife and I are scared E36 M3less right now waiting to see what the school district is going to do to her insurance. With them being contracted, we won't know until next April what real changes we're goingto have to pay for. According to the calculator thingy I've found, we'll be looking at about a 400% increase because of our income level if the district drops it. I don't know about you, but a 400% increase doesn't sound very berkeleying "Affordable" to me.
Xceler8x wrote:RX Reven' wrote: First, we implement tort reform. I don’t believe anyone has contested the estimate that 15% to 18% of all medical spending is defensive IE: Run tests, proscribe meds, etc. that aren’t needed just to minimize the risk of being sued. So, no more punitive damages…if somebody screws up, they’d still be fully liable for lost wages, pain & suffering but no more throwing on a few extra million to “teach them a lesson”. Next, we redirect the freed up capital and resources to expand Medicaid to provide a social safety net that would be the envy of the world. Problem solved in 99 words rather than the 20,000 pages of power grabbing, vote pandering bull E36 M3 known as the ACA.So you have your beloved tort reform and people who suffer due to slap dash care are now unable to sue for sufficient cash to care for themselves. All due to no fault of their own. Where does all that "Freed up capital" come from? Hospitals? Doctors? The insurers of those hospitals and doctors? I'm assuming those are the typical targets of this type of litigation. How do we extract that "freed up capital" from the Insurance companies then? Via taxes? Let's not even address that now Health ins companies can now kick you from insurance when you need it since Obamacare is evidently repealed via your scenario. Also, Health ins companies can again deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions like adult acne or headaches. Your silver bullet turns into a flying turd upon further analysis.
Hi Xceler8x,
In litigation, there is “remedy” which is legalese for what it takes to make someone whole. So, lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering are awarded to “remedy” the wrong doing. Beyond this is “punitive” damages which is intended to discipline the liable party.
My BFT “beloved flying turd” plan, which I’ve named in your honor, would leave the remedy portion in place but would remove the punitive portion.
The effect would be two fold.
First, there’d be a big reduction in the burden on our health care system as the need to practice defensive medicine would be reduced. On the low end of the estimate, 15% of resources ( nurses, doctors, beds, equipment, consumables, devices, medications) are currently wasted on activities that are not required. Case in point, my wife had a c-section on our second child because she was in a Frank Breach orientation. My BIL is a doctor and he told me c-sections are not indicated for Frank Breach…in other words, a far more expensive and undesirable procedure was used just to guard against litigation.
If only half of defensive medicine was eliminated by removing punitive damages, we’d free up 7.5% of the current burden on our entire medical system which could then be reallocated to supporting an expanded Medicaid program.
Second, the cost of providing services would be greatly reduced as malpractice insurance premiums would be much smaller. Although the premiums vary greatly as a function of specialty and location, a fair rule of thumb is 8% of the salary of the person providing the service. So, again, if we take half that value, we have a 4% reduction. At the end of the day, everything is salary…we don’t pay the earth for raw materials, we pay the person that dug them up and refined them.
Bottom line, we could wildly expand Medicid to provide a world class social safety net without compromising service availability to existing participants or adding any cost to the system. It’s really simple, stop performing unnecessary c-sections and redirect the resources and expenses to caring for the poor.
Of course, attorneys will hate this solution and since our law makers, all the way up to the President himself, are attorneys, it will be an uphill battle. However, things may get so bad that people wake up and stop wasting time calling each other names and actually go after the root cause of the problem.
Bobzilla wrote: Now remember, nothing bad can come of the ACA. Only bad people doing bad things can happen. IT's written perfectly. I won't lie, the wife and I are scared E36 M3less right now waiting to see what the school district is going to do to her insurance. With them being contracted, we won't know until next April what real changes we're goingto have to pay for. According to the calculator thingy I've found, we'll be looking at about a 400% increase because of our income level if the district drops it. I don't know about you, but a 400% increase doesn't sound very berkeleying "Affordable" to me.
Mine is a 700% increase, but no one believed me. Still haven't got any news from hr.
Datsun1500 wrote: When did it become acceptable to not look out for yourself?
A LARGE majority of illnesses have nothing to do with looking out for yourself.
Of course, your post indicates that you probably don't care about universal healthcare.
In reply to nicksta43:
Yea, thankfully I'm single with no kiddos......because that jump was even worse than being single.
Datsun1500 wrote: Everyone says it's great because they can't deny a pre-existing condition. Does that even make sense? When did it become acceptable to not look out for yourself? Want health insurance? Buy it. Decide to take the risk of not having it, deal with the consequences.
Um, if you are born with a pre-existing condition like say a heart murmur how is that your fault?
Datsun1500 wrote: Everyone says it's great because they can't deny a pre-existing condition. Does that even make sense? Can I buy a car with a broken windshield and claim it on my insurance? Why not? When did it become acceptable to not look out for yourself? Want health insurance? Buy it. Decide to take the risk of not having it, deal with the consequences.
As someone born with birth defects, this I can certainly say that being denied based on pre-existance does not necessarily have anything to do with my lifestyle choices or how I take care of myself. That said, Ive never had any issues with any conditions regarding my insurance coverage either. If it aint broke, keep your grubby mits the hell off it.
You'll need to log in to post.
