Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't say that I have. I can't say that some reform is a bad idea either.
I was called for jury duty awhile back. One case I was on was a lady suing her doctor. She had a bladder issue like many women experience and she went to this doctor to address it. The doctor said that he told her that the procedure was not foolproof and did not always help everyone. She admitted this was told to her but she still sued because her problem wasn't fixed.
I still remember going back to the room to decide the case and the forman said "Well what do you think". Someone spoke up and said "I think she's all wet".
Not to make fun of an unfortunate situation but we found for the doctor. There never should have been a suit in this instance.
9 times out of 10 - the jury finds in the doctor's favor. That doesn't mean we don't have some grossly incompetent doctors out there practicing when they shouldn't.
Until you have been the victim of a medical error - it's hard to explain.
Suddenly the patient is like a leper and no physician will tell the truth; including the original physician. I firmly believe that a lot of doctor lawsuits could be avoided if they were trained to handle the situation with dignity and truth instead of lies and cover-up.
Just for the record....Obamacare does not stop the "moochers". Multi millions will not be paying for it.
Fundamentally a lot of this criticism comes in the form of comparing the reality of the ACA to an abstract idealized system rather than comparing it to the status quo, which is far worse.
Fundamentally a lot of this criticism comes in the form of comparing the reality of the ACA to an abstract idealized system rather than comparing it to the status quo, which is far worse.
Or comparing what certain politicians PROMISED and CLAIMED would happen if it were passed and what it ACTUALLY does.
- Cost less? Nope
- Insure everyone? Nope
- Keep your doctor or plan? Nope
- Create 400,000 jobs? Nope
- Be deficit neutral? Nope
- Not increase ant taxes? Nope
- No lobbyists involved? Nope
- Done transparently? Nope
- No bureaucrat involved in your health decisions? Nope
The status quo seems to be 1000% better and wouldn't cause a doctor crisis or stifle innovation.
Oh, it CAN be done, but not without inflicting a whole lot of pain on their own base. Conservatives are way too cowardly to actually stand behind their own rhetoric when it actually counts. What's that phrase--all hat, no cattle? Describes today's GOP perfectly.
Agreed. The actual voting doesn't back up the words.
Or comparing what certain politicians PROMISED and CLAIMED would happen if it were passed and what it ACTUALLY does.
- Cost less? Nope
- Insure everyone? Nope
- Keep your doctor or plan? Nope
- Create 400,000 jobs? Nope
- Be deficit neutral? Nope
- Not increase ant taxes? Nope
- No lobbyists involved? Nope
- Done transparently? Nope
- No bureaucrat involved in your health decisions? Nope
The status quo seems to be 1000% better and wouldn't cause a doctor crisis or stifle innovation.
Posted with TapaTalk
The ACA does cost less, as NY and CA are finding out. By you are right, it isn't deficit neutral -- it lowers the deficit. That's why the CBO forecasted that repealing the ACA would cost a hundred of billion.
Quote:
CBO and JCT most recently estimated the budgetary impact of repealing the ACA in July 2012. In a letter to Speaker Boehner (sent on July 24, 2012), CBO described the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives earlier in July. In that letter, CBO indicated that the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions that repeal of the ACA would entail. On balance, CBO and JCT estimated, repealing the ACA would affect direct spending and revenues in ways resulting in a net increase in budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.
The ACA does cost less, as NY and CA are finding out.
The reason NY and CA residents are not going to see an increase is because they already mandated many of the things that drive up insurance costs. They already have very comprehensive plans driven by state mandates. Those will now be required in other states where lower cost plans that only covered major expenses were available.
In Ohio the average premium could go up 41% and in Florida it could go up 35%.
The reason NY and CA residents are not going to see an increase is because they already mandated many of the things that drive up insurance costs. They already have very comprehensive plans driven by state mandates. Those will now be required in other states where lower cost plans that only covered major expenses were available.
In Ohio the average premium could go up 41% and in Florida it could go up 35%.
Yes, we know. States that are antagonistic to the ACA have been projecting the cost to be higher. Many say they're fudging the numbers. According to Politco more people are expected to purchase bronze and silver plans because they cost less, but Ohio is averaging in the cost of the gold and platinum plans, which drives up the estimate. Average cost doesn’t mean it’s what the typical person will pay.
Last week House Republicans voted for the 40th time to repeal Obamacare. Like the previous 39 votes, this action will have no effect whatsoever. But it was a stand-in for what Republicans really want to do: repeal reality, and the laws of arithmetic in particular. The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy, unable to participate in actual governing.
Why, how fiscally responsible.
And they say that there's no problem with the congressional republicans.
Feh.
Why, how fiscally responsible.
And they say that there's no problem with the congressional republicans.
Feh.
It is funny and sad. The GOP says they are for fiscal soundness but then they vote 40 times to repeal Obamacare, a repeal plan that would add $109 billion to the deficit.
The ACA does cost less, as NY and CA are finding out. By you are right, it isn't deficit neutral -- it lowers the deficit. That's why the CBO forecasted that repealing the ACA would cost a hundred of billion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
