Not really. You see, the first amendment doesn't say you have a right to free speech, it says the government cannot deny it. It says nothing to restrict anyone but government from denying free speech to anyone.
The US constitution give you absolutely no rights. It stops government from taking them away.
Actually, the normal fluctuations of patterns confirms that all life on this planet will not be destroyed like some of the extreme political fear mongers championing the cause for their own ends want us to believe.
You have to remember, there isn't just one front of believers verses deniers here. There is the science and political fronts with several sets of extremes within subgroups of each.
I don't think that is the case except for when his presence is not deemed without importance to the hearing. Swedish law says the suspect must appear to the main and appeals hearing, If the court claims his appearance is necessary to an inquiry, and to any preparatory meeting if "it is presumed" his presence will "promote the purpose of the hearing".
I did some further searching and found an English version of the Swedish code of judicial procedure. This document seems to make the case that what is happening with Assange is not only customary and within the powers of the Swedish judicial system, but actually somewhat required of it. It appears the extradition is in order to maintain its fairness to Assange. Also, according to it, all information that could help Assange is supposed to be released so the concept of the accusers no cooperating with the authorities or not wanting the prosecution should have been released by the government.
Chapter 23 also states that once an investigation is started by the police or the prosecutor, the police can only investigate simple crimes and the police have to turn "complicated" investigations over to the prosecutors office. Only the prosecutor can make the decision to drop a case or investigation and only if there is no substantial public or private interest that would be ignored.
Witnesses won't matter too much if who is following you is working for the government or a well organized crime syndicate. In either case, your abduction will either look official or part of something no one wants to get involved with.
Most criminal enterprises will have people willing to go to prison to further their goals. In prison, they will automatically have an elevated status in their clique and plenty of previous members already there to welcome them. You even have groups that will band together out of necessity to protect themselves from the other prison gangs.
Actually, I'm thinking a remote location on the grid if the best option. Join a migrant worker's camp. Preferably one in a west coast state. No real identity needed, cops routinely overlook them and probably warn them of impending raids unless you are wanted for a crime. The draw back is that you will need to do back breaking labor for less money then you can imaging it being worth. Plus side, food and clean water, something to occupy your time with, and you don't go insane from no one to talk with for weeks on end (yes, long periods of isolation can cause mental problems).
A trial in absention for criminal trials is generally not allowed. Most western places have a defendant's right to face their accusers and put on a defense enshrined in their legal system. It may technically be impossible for Sweden to put on a trial in absentia for a criminal offense. The US is definitely one of these places and the only way it can happen for a criminal proceeding is if the trial already started and the defended leaves midstream (it is considered willful consent to the absentia if they volunterily leave mid trial)
Please note, some places do not consider civil crimes the same as criminal and allow abstentia in civil cases. You typically can get a default judgement against whoever doesn't show in the US but if they reasonably demonstrate they were not aware of the suit, they can have it vacated and insist in a new civil trial.
I've heard this entire line, they could "trial in absentia" but I don't read Swedish so I have no clue if they can or cannot. I know their legal system is somewhat compatible with the US's as far as due process is concerned so I'm thinking maybe they cannot.
Medical expenses are the majority cause of bankruptcy. And while you do not have to 'sell your [primary] house' to declare bankruptcy, the idea that _no one_ has sold their house for medical treatment is insane.
Bankruptcy needs an excuse other then I went on a spending spree. Medical expenses usually entails loss of employment to why they cannot pay it back. When people file bankruptcy because of medical expenses, it is because of their loss of income. This is something that government health simply does not fix.
That doesn't say they lost their home to medical expenses. It says they lost their income and eventually their home to a medical condition. The main character "gary" lost all employment and they decided to move to another state. Even if their insurance covered 100% of their medical costs, they would be in the same boat because "mary" had to work less to take care of Gary's medical needs which also meant loss of income. Something else government medical didn't won't cover.
Now the devil is in the detail. It says the house didn't sell in time so they filed bankruptcy. But it also said that Gary was blackballed from employment because of his condition so they had no intention of staying in the home. Had Gary remained working and had Mary taken time off to tender Gary and eventually moved to start over, they likely would have been in an entirely different situation. But loss of income isn't covered by Obamacare so the outcome would have been the same- perhaps a little longer to happen had the insurance covered everything.
I understand it is a human interest story. And what better self promotion and human interest is there then someone rising from the ashes when everything was going wrong for them. They were selling the house anyways because they had to move out of state to allow Gary to find employment. This story doesn't say what you think it does.
Also, judgment law, at least in my state, will only allow a creditor to attach a lien to a home if the debt judgment is medical related. So even if you owed 10 million dollars in medical bills, they can't take your home. They can stop you from selling it or transferring ownership to anyone else (except a surviving spouse or surviving child) but they cannot take it.
Perhaps you can read your own posts- consult the idiots in your mind, and tell me.
I've spent several posts now explaining the comment and right when I think there is no way you can get it wrong, you pretend something else completely was said or would be said.
Wow, do they have unicorns where you live too, or does it just rain candy at night so you can have sunshine all day?:-) I'll agree that less things require professional health care than people think, but eventually most people will need medical intervention of some sort, and I do not mean crazy heroic medicine to scratch out an extra week at the end. Health insurance depends on people not needing as much as they pay for on average. They do not depend on nobody ever needing any.
You have already demonstrated that you are confused little troll in many of our other posts and replies but you really illustrate it quite well here. Just because people will one day need health care coverage does not in any way mean they will need it right now or that they believe they need it right now. It is not my fault that someone's business model depends on me buying something I do not need at the moment in order to function properly. I have no obligation to support some company's attempt to profit until I desire the services or products. Plenty of people who will never need them already join in and purchase them.
A few misconceptions for you, only the Republicans have ever claimed (lied) that universal health care excludes the possibility of supplemental private health care. The systems in the UK and and Australia are considered universal health care. It is so-named because it is universally available. Nobody in the U.S. has even suggested excluding a parallel or supplemental private health care. No other country excludes that. Not one.
Lets stick with reality. No one ever said there was no possibility of supplemental insurance. I certainly haven't. The republicans I have heard speak about it say that it will be taxed and extremely costly making it impractical to get anything other then the government mandated policies. I do not know what you are smoking but you should put the glass dick down long enough to pay attention. I know damn well what England and Australia have and even suggested something similar but without costing a fortune and decades to implement. And for the record, I suggested implementing the parallel health care system as a way to control costs (which obamacare doesn't) and provide greater access to it. That is me, as in myself, as in someone sitting in the US.
Real health care cost in other countries is only 1/3 as much as it costs in the U.S. That includes all tax money, insurance premiums, co-pays, and etc. All of it. That cannot be explained by medicare 'underpaying'. Every extra dollar charged somewhere else would be balanced by that dollar not being spent by medicare (unless, of course, that was just an excuse to gouge). It cannot be explained by a reasonable profit. Nobody is entitled to 66 points net profit.
Actually, underpayment and HMO discounting does explain a good portion of it. And yes, think gouging. I never said it explained all of it so do not be ridiculous and claim I did. I said it created a environment where overpricing is highly encouraged in order to pretend to be offering a discount. It was born from the Medicare partial payments and is further encouraged by the HMO's trying to get deals to allow their patients to be covered at the health care facilities.
Opening VA hospitals to the public would be a good step. Simply extending medicare to all citizens would eventually move us in the right direction as well. Allowing (even encouraging) the re-import of drugs and medical equipment from other countries. would help. Non-profit hospitals would help, particularly if they are assisted in re-importing supplies so they can get out from under the outrageous gouging in the U.S. market so they can charge close to the REAL cost of providing care. Medical billing is a HUGE cost and benefits nobody. A single payer system would greatly reduce that cost. There would still be other insurance, but since it would be non-essential, they w
Are you capable of following a simple line of thought? Or is there some other voice in your head making you assume things were said that aren't even close to reality. His point is a non sequitur because it will be the same as now- period.
IF anyone is calling it a disaster it would be the people calling the current situation a disaster and that tell us more about you then you have bothered to gain from the posts discussing it.
Everyone knows that politicians say one thing to get elected and often do their own thing once in office. Even the current administration suffers this problem quite well.
Or maybe he thinks Criminal justice sentence imposed by a court of law according to the laws of the state that were created democratically long before he was born and survived until this day is slightly different then forcing children to be exposed to drugs for conditions they do not have and without long term effects being entirely known as the HPV vaccine is relatively new and he received a severe public backlash over it largely from those concerns.
Ron Paul isn't trying to run third party this turn. He was trying to get the Republican nomination. He suspended the actual attempt at that but not his campaign back when there was some dispute about delegate distribution in some states he did quite well in.
Some people are claiming there will be a delegate revolution at the convention but it doesn't seem likely to succeed.
After Ross Pero, they seem to limit the presidential debates to whom they think has a chance of winning. The woman's league got pissed at this and actually stopped hosting the debates at one point in time (I don't know if they resumed or not).
Most likely the questions were operating under the same principle. Not to many people care about the Green Party or the Communist party candidate who may not even be on the ballot in some states.
Well, the one quoting the old testament will be an answer in itself, in that they don't care about or believe in science.
Why do idiots insist this to be true? There is absolutely no conflict between the old testament and 99% or more of science. If you dismiss the creation story as a figurative attempt at explaining in the beginning to a technologically inferior people who didn't even have enough words in their vocabulary to write most modern text books, then it is almost completely devoid of conflict. The old testament even had some insights into germs and germ theory of disease that we wouldn't rediscovered until late in our history with Louis Pasteur, Girolamo Fracastoro, John Snow, and Francesco Redi.
But in general, I'm just pissed off that they gave them the questions ahead of time. OBVIOUSLY if this debate were to take place, they'd each have had a pile of scientists and specialists give them the answers, which they will just read verbatim. It would have been FAR, FAR more informative if they were perhaps just given the vague, general ballpark that the questions will be in, then both of them hear the questions for the first time at the debate, and have to wing it from their ACTUAL knowledge and thoughts, not just whatever drivel they feed the press anyway, regurgitated from their advisors.
It doesn't really matter. Politicians by nature have an ability to say things in ways that pander to proponents then ignore those statements or promises one elected. If your goal is to see who is the most informed about science the a pop quiz might be acceptable, but in any respect they will try to answer however they think their base will want them to answer.
In fact, all these question will most likely do is rally their base. I can guess from you comment that even if Obama fails miserably at them an Romney aces them, you will still be voting for Obama or not voting at all.
The teleprompter comment isn't about Obama using a teleprompter, its about him having so much difficulty not using one.
Seriously, listen to him when the teleprompter goes down, there are several examples to chose from. It's like he didn't even read the speech before hand (of course others write their speeches as not everyone can communicate an idea the best without the ability to interact and respond to questions so speech writers are employed to make up for that) and that the topic of the speech is so distant in his mind that it's almost as if he never put thought into it before speaking.
Now that could be because he has difficulty speaking ad lib, it could be other reasons like he is so afraid of making a biden (gaff) and ending up sounding like Bush. He has made some mistakes and they are the center of campaign videos in a lot of the battleground states.
I'm assuming that his point is either, don't use it unless you mean to use it or once you use it, you lose all credibility in the realm of political thought sort of like how using the terms spic, wetback, and nigger wipes away all your credibility in the realm of equality.
Really, how much weight should we give someone using derogatory terms freely? I'm pretty sure it is little to none.
I should have reviewed this better. obvious mistakes are that in other countries, private health has to compete with public not the other way around and it should read county not country in hat statement about nonprofit hospitals in every county of every state.
Most people are not victimized by crime in a gioven year either. Most people will be one day if there are no police. Most people will eventually need some sort of health care and, in fact, over a lifetime there's a fair chance that it will be a matter of life and death.
lol.. You're dreaming. Most people will not need health care in a life threatening way unless it's at their old age and they are trying to prolong dieing already. The entire insurance industry banks on this fact that most people will not draw from the system. They sign them up as a just in case scenario in order to pay for the minority of people who will need coverage. Obamacare works on this principle and attempts to lower the costs of insurance by forcing the healthy people who will not need insurance into buying it to spread the costs of who do need it out more. There is even a provision in there which dictates that if the insurance company takes in a % more then it pays out, it needs to return the % of intake back to the policy holders which they timed to be right before this years election for the first payout.
At the same time, there is plenty of reason to resent having to pay so much for even necessary health care. It really shouldn't be as expensive as it is. There's no good reason a middle class family should need help affording health care at all, but the costs have gone out of control because the market does not work here.
I agree. The medical industry is raping the wallets of many people. Some of it is due to the extremely large costs of getting medical procedures, devices, and medications approved for general use. Some of this is for the costs of maintenance that is really more rigorous then anything else to avoid liability issues should something malfunction. But for the most part, the reason everything is so expensive is because the government got involved in healthcare in the first place.
Medicare and medicaid only pay a percentage of a regional average for the health care provided. If the treatment costs the medical provider $100 in actual costs to perform, government reimbursement will be $80-$95 without considering the average. The cure for that is to ensure you are charging enough so that after the discounted payment, you cover costs. The nation is divided into 5 sections (based on the cost of living index) and costs statistics.are gathered then averaged. If your real costs to provide a treatment is $100, and the average is $80, the reimbursement can actually be $50-70 because they will work the percentage off the average and if the provider doesn't accept it as payment in full (with the exception of certain co pay obligations in some of the medicare programs), they cannot accept any government provided health care patient including government employees with regular insurance provided by their employment contract or receive certain tax benefits given to medical providers. So right off the bat there is incentive to inflate the costs of treatment just to recover actual costs due to someone covered in an existing program.
This gets compounded with the 1968 HMO act which was Ted Kennedy's first attempt at health care reform. It allows insurance companies to negotiate lower rates for insurance patients on their plans. The way to give these discounts and cover costs including profit is to inflate the costs so the discount covers the real costs. Again, an incentive to make things more expensive base solely on how most medical services are paid for. This HMO act also set the standard for insurance companies to determine standard treatments and negotiate the effectiveness of the non-standard treatments before allowing or denying them. This is implemented in Obamacare also and commonly refereed to as the death panels but in private insurance is usually called a Resource-based relative value scale.
All in all, we might be better off with universal health care provided at a reasonable price. People in other countries pay
Please don't get me wrong, I didn't say it isn't happening right now with private insurance, I'm saying it won't change except for the point of having the ability to get non-standard treatment in some cases. The op's point of how scary it is to get approval for something is was negated by that. Bringing up the death panels was only to point to the inner workings setting that up within the Obamacare package.
No, I'm claiming that the majority of people who do not think they need health insurance and would take the catastrophic coverage would spend the money saved on other things.
And yes, that is a true story about being on the lake in my 20K boat talking to others in 15K-40k boats who expressed those exact same sentiments while anchored at the boat swimming area and drinking a few beers, This was before the Obamacare law came into play and there was still a raging debate. They actually wanted to keep their luxuries while having the government provide health coverage that they were forgoing in order to provide for their luxuries. I did the exact same thing (spent my insurance premiums on a boat, 4 wheelers, guns and hunting equipment, electronics, and had the $120 per month cable package that jumped to $200 a month when I got high speed cable internet, but I did not expect the government to provide my health care coverage that I could otherwise afford..
Yes, it is. You are arguing the only two options are a list of pre-approved public healthcare treatments or a free-for-all of private-health-insurance-funded treatments.
No I am not. I am arguing that the point about calling for approval is pointless, meaningless, and not connected in bringing up government mandated healthcare verses the way it exists now because the reality is that all treatments that do not require an approval will continue to be made, the only difference is that there will not be the non-standard treatments without getting approval.
This isn't a two options, There might very well be an option where something can be called in and approved with government health care either by privately funding it or from within the system, But then we are at the same place no matter what. If the op claims there will be no call in needed, then it will only be for standard care that doesn't need approval right now.
You need to start looking at the situation with more than one eye half open.
You need to look at it without your preconceived notions. This part of the thread was a specific reply to a specific statement. If the statement was you need to call for approval now (which you do for non-standard treatment) and do not under obamacare or other government health care, it will be because you are getting the standard treatment. The entire idea of government health care is to control costs, this is claimed to be done by a panel that dictates the standard treatment so everyone goes to the doc and gets the same effective treatment instead of me getting a deluxe package and costing 5 times as much outside of you only getting the accepted norm for the same condition and the same outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. You see, the first amendment doesn't say you have a right to free speech, it says the government cannot deny it. It says nothing to restrict anyone but government from denying free speech to anyone.
The US constitution give you absolutely no rights. It stops government from taking them away.
Actually, the normal fluctuations of patterns confirms that all life on this planet will not be destroyed like some of the extreme political fear mongers championing the cause for their own ends want us to believe.
You have to remember, there isn't just one front of believers verses deniers here. There is the science and political fronts with several sets of extremes within subgroups of each.
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
Chapter21 section 2.
I don't think that is the case except for when his presence is not deemed without importance to the hearing. Swedish law says the suspect must appear to the main and appeals hearing, If the court claims his appearance is necessary to an inquiry, and to any preparatory meeting if "it is presumed" his presence will "promote the purpose of the hearing".
I did some further searching and found an English version of the Swedish code of judicial procedure. This document seems to make the case that what is happening with Assange is not only customary and within the powers of the Swedish judicial system, but actually somewhat required of it. It appears the extradition is in order to maintain its fairness to Assange. Also, according to it, all information that could help Assange is supposed to be released so the concept of the accusers no cooperating with the authorities or not wanting the prosecution should have been released by the government.
Chapter 23 also states that once an investigation is started by the police or the prosecutor, the police can only investigate simple crimes and the police have to turn "complicated" investigations over to the prosecutors office. Only the prosecutor can make the decision to drop a case or investigation and only if there is no substantial public or private interest that would be ignored.
Witnesses won't matter too much if who is following you is working for the government or a well organized crime syndicate. In either case, your abduction will either look official or part of something no one wants to get involved with.
Most criminal enterprises will have people willing to go to prison to further their goals. In prison, they will automatically have an elevated status in their clique and plenty of previous members already there to welcome them. You even have groups that will band together out of necessity to protect themselves from the other prison gangs.
Actually, I'm thinking a remote location on the grid if the best option. Join a migrant worker's camp. Preferably one in a west coast state. No real identity needed, cops routinely overlook them and probably warn them of impending raids unless you are wanted for a crime. The draw back is that you will need to do back breaking labor for less money then you can imaging it being worth. Plus side, food and clean water, something to occupy your time with, and you don't go insane from no one to talk with for weeks on end (yes, long periods of isolation can cause mental problems).
A trial in absention for criminal trials is generally not allowed. Most western places have a defendant's right to face their accusers and put on a defense enshrined in their legal system. It may technically be impossible for Sweden to put on a trial in absentia for a criminal offense. The US is definitely one of these places and the only way it can happen for a criminal proceeding is if the trial already started and the defended leaves midstream (it is considered willful consent to the absentia if they volunterily leave mid trial)
Please note, some places do not consider civil crimes the same as criminal and allow abstentia in civil cases. You typically can get a default judgement against whoever doesn't show in the US but if they reasonably demonstrate they were not aware of the suit, they can have it vacated and insist in a new civil trial.
I've heard this entire line, they could "trial in absentia" but I don't read Swedish so I have no clue if they can or cannot. I know their legal system is somewhat compatible with the US's as far as due process is concerned so I'm thinking maybe they cannot.
Bankruptcy needs an excuse other then I went on a spending spree. Medical expenses usually entails loss of employment to why they cannot pay it back. When people file bankruptcy because of medical expenses, it is because of their loss of income. This is something that government health simply does not fix.
That doesn't say they lost their home to medical expenses. It says they lost their income and eventually their home to a medical condition. The main character "gary" lost all employment and they decided to move to another state. Even if their insurance covered 100% of their medical costs, they would be in the same boat because "mary" had to work less to take care of Gary's medical needs which also meant loss of income. Something else government medical didn't won't cover.
Now the devil is in the detail. It says the house didn't sell in time so they filed bankruptcy. But it also said that Gary was blackballed from employment because of his condition so they had no intention of staying in the home. Had Gary remained working and had Mary taken time off to tender Gary and eventually moved to start over, they likely would have been in an entirely different situation. But loss of income isn't covered by Obamacare so the outcome would have been the same- perhaps a little longer to happen had the insurance covered everything.
I understand it is a human interest story. And what better self promotion and human interest is there then someone rising from the ashes when everything was going wrong for them. They were selling the house anyways because they had to move out of state to allow Gary to find employment. This story doesn't say what you think it does.
Also, judgment law, at least in my state, will only allow a creditor to attach a lien to a home if the debt judgment is medical related. So even if you owed 10 million dollars in medical bills, they can't take your home. They can stop you from selling it or transferring ownership to anyone else (except a surviving spouse or surviving child) but they cannot take it.
Did someone catch you doing that and tell you it was gross or something? Maybe you can shit unicorns and rainbows or something instead.
Perhaps you can read your own posts- consult the idiots in your mind, and tell me.
I've spent several posts now explaining the comment and right when I think there is no way you can get it wrong, you pretend something else completely was said or would be said.
You have already demonstrated that you are confused little troll in many of our other posts and replies but you really illustrate it quite well here. Just because people will one day need health care coverage does not in any way mean they will need it right now or that they believe they need it right now. It is not my fault that someone's business model depends on me buying something I do not need at the moment in order to function properly. I have no obligation to support some company's attempt to profit until I desire the services or products. Plenty of people who will never need them already join in and purchase them.
Lets stick with reality. No one ever said there was no possibility of supplemental insurance. I certainly haven't. The republicans I have heard speak about it say that it will be taxed and extremely costly making it impractical to get anything other then the government mandated policies. I do not know what you are smoking but you should put the glass dick down long enough to pay attention. I know damn well what England and Australia have and even suggested something similar but without costing a fortune and decades to implement. And for the record, I suggested implementing the parallel health care system as a way to control costs (which obamacare doesn't) and provide greater access to it. That is me, as in myself, as in someone sitting in the US.
Actually, underpayment and HMO discounting does explain a good portion of it. And yes, think gouging. I never said it explained all of it so do not be ridiculous and claim I did. I said it created a environment where overpricing is highly encouraged in order to pretend to be offering a discount. It was born from the Medicare partial payments and is further encouraged by the HMO's trying to get deals to allow their patients to be covered at the health care facilities.
Are you capable of following a simple line of thought? Or is there some other voice in your head making you assume things were said that aren't even close to reality. His point is a non sequitur because it will be the same as now- period.
IF anyone is calling it a disaster it would be the people calling the current situation a disaster and that tell us more about you then you have bothered to gain from the posts discussing it.
Someone mod the parent post +10,000 insightful.
Everyone knows that politicians say one thing to get elected and often do their own thing once in office. Even the current administration suffers this problem quite well.
Or maybe he thinks Criminal justice sentence imposed by a court of law according to the laws of the state that were created democratically long before he was born and survived until this day is slightly different then forcing children to be exposed to drugs for conditions they do not have and without long term effects being entirely known as the HPV vaccine is relatively new and he received a severe public backlash over it largely from those concerns.
Ron Paul isn't trying to run third party this turn. He was trying to get the Republican nomination. He suspended the actual attempt at that but not his campaign back when there was some dispute about delegate distribution in some states he did quite well in.
Some people are claiming there will be a delegate revolution at the convention but it doesn't seem likely to succeed.
After Ross Pero, they seem to limit the presidential debates to whom they think has a chance of winning. The woman's league got pissed at this and actually stopped hosting the debates at one point in time (I don't know if they resumed or not).
Most likely the questions were operating under the same principle. Not to many people care about the Green Party or the Communist party candidate who may not even be on the ballot in some states.
Sigh,
Why do idiots insist this to be true? There is absolutely no conflict between the old testament and 99% or more of science. If you dismiss the creation story as a figurative attempt at explaining in the beginning to a technologically inferior people who didn't even have enough words in their vocabulary to write most modern text books, then it is almost completely devoid of conflict. The old testament even had some insights into germs and germ theory of disease that we wouldn't rediscovered until late in our history with Louis Pasteur, Girolamo Fracastoro, John Snow, and Francesco Redi.
It doesn't really matter. Politicians by nature have an ability to say things in ways that pander to proponents then ignore those statements or promises one elected. If your goal is to see who is the most informed about science the a pop quiz might be acceptable, but in any respect they will try to answer however they think their base will want them to answer.
In fact, all these question will most likely do is rally their base. I can guess from you comment that even if Obama fails miserably at them an Romney aces them, you will still be voting for Obama or not voting at all.
The teleprompter comment isn't about Obama using a teleprompter, its about him having so much difficulty not using one.
Seriously, listen to him when the teleprompter goes down, there are several examples to chose from. It's like he didn't even read the speech before hand (of course others write their speeches as not everyone can communicate an idea the best without the ability to interact and respond to questions so speech writers are employed to make up for that) and that the topic of the speech is so distant in his mind that it's almost as if he never put thought into it before speaking.
Now that could be because he has difficulty speaking ad lib, it could be other reasons like he is so afraid of making a biden (gaff) and ending up sounding like Bush. He has made some mistakes and they are the center of campaign videos in a lot of the battleground states.
I'm assuming that his point is either, don't use it unless you mean to use it or once you use it, you lose all credibility in the realm of political thought sort of like how using the terms spic, wetback, and nigger wipes away all your credibility in the realm of equality.
Really, how much weight should we give someone using derogatory terms freely? I'm pretty sure it is little to none.
I should have reviewed this better. obvious mistakes are that in other countries, private health has to compete with public not the other way around and it should read county not country in hat statement about nonprofit hospitals in every county of every state.
lol.. You're dreaming. Most people will not need health care in a life threatening way unless it's at their old age and they are trying to prolong dieing already. The entire insurance industry banks on this fact that most people will not draw from the system. They sign them up as a just in case scenario in order to pay for the minority of people who will need coverage. Obamacare works on this principle and attempts to lower the costs of insurance by forcing the healthy people who will not need insurance into buying it to spread the costs of who do need it out more. There is even a provision in there which dictates that if the insurance company takes in a % more then it pays out, it needs to return the % of intake back to the policy holders which they timed to be right before this years election for the first payout.
I agree. The medical industry is raping the wallets of many people. Some of it is due to the extremely large costs of getting medical procedures, devices, and medications approved for general use. Some of this is for the costs of maintenance that is really more rigorous then anything else to avoid liability issues should something malfunction. But for the most part, the reason everything is so expensive is because the government got involved in healthcare in the first place.
Medicare and medicaid only pay a percentage of a regional average for the health care provided. If the treatment costs the medical provider $100 in actual costs to perform, government reimbursement will be $80-$95 without considering the average. The cure for that is to ensure you are charging enough so that after the discounted payment, you cover costs. The nation is divided into 5 sections (based on the cost of living index) and costs statistics.are gathered then averaged. If your real costs to provide a treatment is $100, and the average is $80, the reimbursement can actually be $50-70 because they will work the percentage off the average and if the provider doesn't accept it as payment in full (with the exception of certain co pay obligations in some of the medicare programs), they cannot accept any government provided health care patient including government employees with regular insurance provided by their employment contract or receive certain tax benefits given to medical providers. So right off the bat there is incentive to inflate the costs of treatment just to recover actual costs due to someone covered in an existing program.
This gets compounded with the 1968 HMO act which was Ted Kennedy's first attempt at health care reform. It allows insurance companies to negotiate lower rates for insurance patients on their plans. The way to give these discounts and cover costs including profit is to inflate the costs so the discount covers the real costs. Again, an incentive to make things more expensive base solely on how most medical services are paid for. This HMO act also set the standard for insurance companies to determine standard treatments and negotiate the effectiveness of the non-standard treatments before allowing or denying them. This is implemented in Obamacare also and commonly refereed to as the death panels but in private insurance is usually called a Resource-based relative value scale.
Please don't get me wrong, I didn't say it isn't happening right now with private insurance, I'm saying it won't change except for the point of having the ability to get non-standard treatment in some cases. The op's point of how scary it is to get approval for something is was negated by that. Bringing up the death panels was only to point to the inner workings setting that up within the Obamacare package.
No, I'm claiming that the majority of people who do not think they need health insurance and would take the catastrophic coverage would spend the money saved on other things.
And yes, that is a true story about being on the lake in my 20K boat talking to others in 15K-40k boats who expressed those exact same sentiments while anchored at the boat swimming area and drinking a few beers, This was before the Obamacare law came into play and there was still a raging debate. They actually wanted to keep their luxuries while having the government provide health coverage that they were forgoing in order to provide for their luxuries. I did the exact same thing (spent my insurance premiums on a boat, 4 wheelers, guns and hunting equipment, electronics, and had the $120 per month cable package that jumped to $200 a month when I got high speed cable internet, but I did not expect the government to provide my health care coverage that I could otherwise afford..
No I am not. I am arguing that the point about calling for approval is pointless, meaningless, and not connected in bringing up government mandated healthcare verses the way it exists now because the reality is that all treatments that do not require an approval will continue to be made, the only difference is that there will not be the non-standard treatments without getting approval.
This isn't a two options, There might very well be an option where something can be called in and approved with government health care either by privately funding it or from within the system, But then we are at the same place no matter what. If the op claims there will be no call in needed, then it will only be for standard care that doesn't need approval right now.
You need to look at it without your preconceived notions. This part of the thread was a specific reply to a specific statement. If the statement was you need to call for approval now (which you do for non-standard treatment) and do not under obamacare or other government health care, it will be because you are getting the standard treatment. The entire idea of government health care is to control costs, this is claimed to be done by a panel that dictates the standard treatment so everyone goes to the doc and gets the same effective treatment instead of me getting a deluxe package and costing 5 times as much outside of you only getting the accepted norm for the same condition and the same outcome.
That's so cool, I had the same conversation with a democrat except they insisted Obama was going to give them a car and pay their rent too.
Do you think we both found a couple of idiots? Or is it wise to base our entire geo political views from these encounters?
Then I suppose posting in a thread started by one person extolling their interpretations of the bible is the wrong place for you to be commenting.