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 find it refreshing that she had the candor to speak the truth.
Doesn't matter if the topic is Obamacare or something else, it's generally a truism.
I mean, serious irony here, there is a repeated meme here from the right that young voters stupidly voted for Obama.
Now, whether that's true or not it's hillariously hypocritical to call the young people stupid in one breath and then moan and finger point when your rivals reach the same conclusion.
At least 24 states have laws that limit damage payments in malpractice cases. Most of these laws limit the amounts paid for noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) but a few limit both economic (e.g., medical expenses and lost wages) and noneconomic damages.
I believe the Bush Administration proposed to cap payments for noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. That went nowhere. I seem to recall the Constitution was used as an argument.
After 6 years of a Republican controlled Congress under a Republican President, I think we can kiss medical tort reform goodbye and agree that Congress is uninterested, regardless of which party holds the majority.
My long time OB/GYN was paying $350,000 a year in malpractice insurance. After 3 decades and serious thousands of births, she had to discontinue her OB practice. Fast forward a few years, she folded her practice and joined a hospital-owned group as an employee. Her employer gets a group rate on malpractice and she gets to do what she intended, all along- deliver healthy babies. She also now has a life and is not on call 24/7.
Which only means nobody is serious about bringing costs down....that's what I said. The arguments are often times that places like Canada is able to handle universal health care. They also hold the costs down. That's the problem, you can not address only one side of the problem.
Statistically young people don't need health insurance, criminally the ACA forces them to purchase it to pay for the needs of others. Name calling and demogoging those who don't enroll shows how desperate they are.
Do you have any statistics that are about how many young people use the Emergency Room for Primary Care? Go ahead and include all the people that use Emergency Rooms for everything.
She's referring to those that are 27+ being knuckleheads, not 17 year old kids.
I saw the video. She was talking about young people who think they are indestructible. It is true, when people are young they think nothing will ever happen to them. If you did not feel that way, then you are an exception rather than the rule. Look at the those young snowboarders etc in the Olympics. They are crazy knuckleheads, and I was just like them when I was young.
She's referring to those that are 27+ being knuckleheads, not 17 year old kids. So you were a knucklehead when you were 27 or 28 years of age? First time cooking? First time cutting their finger, dancing on bar stools? The majority of those over 27 left the nest some time ago and are responsible for themselves. They either live on their own or are married and possibly have a child. Apparently she's referring to those knuckleheads that haven't enrolled under ACA because they can't afford it or they are smart enough to know that they are not going to benefit from ACA but will be funding ACA.
Not all adult children under 27 are being carried on their parent's policy. Those who are married are not eligible. Sadly, not all parents have healthcare insurance. In some cases, neither the parent or the adult children can afford or are willing to make the tough choices to enable them to afford healthcare insurance.
Conversely, many young adults are enrolled in their employer's large group healthcare plans which increasingly include an HSA option.
Young adults tend to think of themselves as invincible which has nothing to do with the ACA.
Which only means nobody is serious about bringing costs down....that's what I said. The arguments are often times that places like Canada is able to handle universal health care. They also hold the costs down. That's the problem, you can not address only one side of the problem.
For neurosurgeons in Miami, the annual cost of medical malpractice insurance is astronomical — $237,000, far more than the median price of a house.
In Toronto, a neurosurgeon pays about $29,200 for coverage. It's even less in Montreal ($20,600) and Vancouver ($10,650).
Why do we and did we refuse to address this?
Interesting read. Part of the problem in the US is addressed here:
"One reason: Canadian law firms, unlike U.S. firms, often require plaintiffs to pay for an initial investigation to determine whether the claim has merit. That cost discourages many people from pursuing a lawsuit."
That, and the British way of making the LOSER pay the winner's legal expenses would likely eliminate future frivolous lawsuits. There is a time and place for litigation, and it should not be viewed as playing the lottery.
While trial lawyers have historically tied themselves to Democrats, they also donate to Republicans as well. Tort reform needs to be a starting point, but as they say, the intersection of politicians and lobbyists is a bad place to be.
Interesting read. Part of the problem in the US is addressed here:
"One reason: Canadian law firms, unlike U.S. firms, often require plaintiffs to pay for an initial investigation to determine whether the claim has merit. That cost discourages many people from pursuing a lawsuit."
That, and the British way of making the LOSER pay the winner's legal expenses would likely eliminate future frivolous lawsuits. There is a time and place for litigation, and it should not be viewed as playing the lottery.
While trial lawyers have historically tied themselves to Democrats, they also donate to Republicans as well. Tort reform needs to be a starting point, but as they say, the intersection of politicians and lobbyists is a bad place to be.
It's clear that this is something that must be addressed to have a working health care system in place here but watch any of the stories and debates......all we get is two sides lying and calling each other names.
What's pathetic is you need to resort to name calling and making it about party because you have nothing else.
Mmmm, yes. Who are the ones crying hysterically about a word? One hint: it's not me or any liberals, it's you cons. Why? Because you have nothing else.
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.
