Results 1 to 10 of 132
Hybrid View
-
03-23-2010, 08:18 PM #1
-
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM #2
Well, he probably wouldn't be signing any forms for the Para-Medics
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to hardblues For This Useful Post:
Muirtach (03-23-2010)
-
03-23-2010, 09:47 PM #3
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369
-
03-23-2010, 08:27 PM #4
-
03-23-2010, 08:31 PM #5
It would depend on the situation. Were I the one at fault I would apologize for the collision and be on my way to deal with it as I see fit on my own. This is not conjecture as I only have partial mobility of my right wrist due to doing just this 2.5 years ago and I stand by my decision. Were I not the person at fault I am honestly not certain how I would proceed. There are a number of factors to be taken into account besides the simple medical aspect. Mainly the security of mind for the other parties involved.
-
03-23-2010, 09:38 PM #6
Good responses, all. I don't have a problem with the topic meandering a bit off course as long as it doesn't turn into a slug fest over political ideology, etc and of course, remains civil.
Honedright: your idea is an interesting one. I rather like it (paying off a bill manually if possible). The only concern I would have with that is the potential for healthcare costs to continue to rise on a seemingly exponential basis. It would be one thing for me to work part time at a hospital paying off a debt of say $10,000 for some relatively routine surgery such as gallbladder removal, but it would be another if that same surgery ended up costing a disparate $100,000 for for no "good" reason. Or, to take it to an absurd degree, but to illustrate my point, the same surgery costing $500,000.
Hospitals would own transplant patients cancer patients, etc. for life.
There is no single finger that can be pointed at a single problem which has caused healthcare and healthcare coverage in the U.S. to reel out of control. A huge factor that no one talks about but I remember when it changed (mid 1990s), lifting the ban on drug companies advertising drugs. That has caused a HUGE spike in healthcare costs. Did you ever think you'd see the day of what is not routine when drug companies tell people to ask their doctors if a drug such as Cost-ton-a will help them when the advertising doesn't even tell you what Cost-ton-a does or is supposed to do?
"Mr. Car Salesman; I heard on TV that I was supposed to ask you about Bently or Lotus. Are they right for me?"
Ok ok, off topic, I know; I take a bit of liberty since I started the post.
Chris L"Blues fallin' down like hail." Robert Johnson
"Aw, Pretty Boy, can't you show me nuthin but surrender?" Patti Smith
-
03-23-2010, 09:48 PM #7
Perhaps off point ChrisL, but you touch on the root of what I suspect is the issue for most people with the whole Bill. It is not that we as a nation do not want some sort of health care reform, but that there are many more factors which have contributed to the current costs of health care than the Bill addresses. A number of which have been brought up in this thread and all factor in a great deal.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Muirtach For This Useful Post:
ChrisL (03-23-2010)
-
03-23-2010, 09:54 PM #8
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369Back on topic: the scuttlebutt I hear is that the state lawsuits will be unsuccessful. But since no one I know has a crystal ball, we'll have to wait and see.
Of course there are those who follow closely the past findings of the individual justices of the supreme court. Someone with that kind of insight might be better able to predict the outcome.
-
03-23-2010, 10:49 PM #9
The supreme court will most likely be different by the time it gets to them. And it's increasingly becoming another venue for measuring political muscle.
From what I understand entitlements like social security have not been deemed non-constitutional in the past and this one doesn't seem qualitatively different to me (privately administered government mandate). But then again the court seems increasingly more willing to rule contrary to its past history.
-
03-23-2010, 10:55 PM #10
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369