"Rats vote for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles

apple0154 said:
So you maintain the Federal Government doesn't have the power to promote the citizen's well-being regarding their health?
Click to expand...
Yes; the Feds do not. Again if its so important to y'all then there is a mechanism to have the Feds take care of your every need and desire: its called the Amendment process.

The Founders weren't stupid. They understood completely that a small majority would vote itself all kinds of benefits paid for by a wealthy minority and thus the system would fail. That's why they created a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution was designed to prevent that by requiring a lengthy, methodical process to enact powers outside of the very limited ones proscribed in Article I Section 8.

You Democrats usurped the Constitution, and the Republic is on its way to bankruptcy because of what y'all did. It will now take a revolution to undo all this, hopefully peacefully through the election process, but based on the level of stubborn stupidity shown by liberals on this board, I doubt that's possible.
 
Southern Man said:
Yes; the Feds do not. Again if its so important to y'all then there is a mechanism to have the Feds take care of your every need and desire: its called the Amendment process.

The Founders weren't stupid. They understood completely that a small majority would vote itself all kinds of benefits paid for by a wealthy minority and thus the system would fail. That's why they created a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution was designed to prevent that by requiring a lengthy, methodical process to enact powers outside of the very limited ones proscribed in Article I Section 8.

You Democrats usurped the Constitution, and the Republic is on its way to bankruptcy because of what y'all did. It will now take a revolution to undo all this, hopefully peacefully through the election process, but based on the level of stubborn stupidity shown by liberals on this board, I doubt that's possible.
Click to expand...

All it takes are votes to undo "all this" but the problem is the citizens are going to like "all this" once they see the Repubs manipulated and lied all the way through it.

How do I know that? I know that because not one country turned their back on a government medical plan. Not one. Ever!

So, while people talk about usurping the Constitution and the government having no right to see to the citizen's health and stories about death panels and rumors of revolution......the seed for health care has now been planted and it is going to grow faster than you can imagine.

Four years from now when most of the provisions come into effect last year's discussions will seem like it was an eternity ago.
 
apple0154 said:
I bet the people who know others who have gone bankrupt due to medical bills don't need any fear encouragement or those who know friends or neighbors who can't afford decent medical care.

The Dems don't have to use fear tactics. A quick Google for "medical bankruptcies" supplies all the reality needed.
Click to expand...

haven't you figured out by now that the Dems have no intention of helping anyone?.....nobody gets anything for years.....this has been nothing but an exercise in raising taxes.....the Dems will use this money to claim they have balanced the budget long before anyone gets a nickel of it to pay medical bills.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
haven't you figured out by now that the Dems have no intention of helping anyone?.....nobody gets anything for years.....this has been nothing but an exercise in raising taxes.....the Dems will use this money to claim they have balanced the budget long before anyone gets a nickel of it to pay medical bills.....
Click to expand...

WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

That site lists the benefits and the year they take effect up to 2018. Check it out.
 
apple0154 said:
All it takes are votes to undo "all this" but the problem is the citizens are going to like "all this" once they see the Repubs manipulated and lied all the way through it.

How do I know that? I know that because not one country turned their back on a government medical plan. Not one. Ever!

So, while people talk about usurping the Constitution and the government having no right to see to the citizen's health and stories about death panels and rumors of revolution......the seed for health care has now been planted and it is going to grow faster than you can imagine.

Four years from now when most of the provisions come into effect last year's discussions will seem like it was an eternity ago.
Click to expand...

The debate issue here is that the Democrats usurped the Constitution. Are you now admitting this?
 
apple0154 said:
Do you have any idea the small amount Tort contributes to the cost of medical care?

(Excerpt) After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine. (Emphasis added) (End)
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Tort reform. Another typical, tired, worn out Repub argument. The very thing Obama told them not to come to the table with.
Click to expand...
If it was solely the lawsuits and the insurance that rose in cost because of it then you'd have a point. But all the studies ignore the effect of defensive medicine, where people are given medication that they shouldn't be, tests that they shouldn't have, treatment for things that they do not have because they fear to be sued.

It also ignores the subsequent effect of such treatments. We now have resistant strains of bugs to our antibiotics because they have been over-prescribed making all treatments more expensive and our ability to fight off disease less effective, 5 tests when 2 would have done make all of our insurance costs rise, not just the doctor's, 5 doctors in the room, 2 anesthesiologists, and more nurses than necessary to ensure they are protected from lawsuits make even surgeries more expensive than necessary. Our litigious society does effect all of our lives, and not always in a way that even gets close to "protecting" society from those "evil" doctors.
 
Damocles said:
If it was solely the lawsuits and the insurance that rose in cost because of it then you'd have a point. But all the studies ignore the effect of defensive medicine, where people are given medication that they shouldn't be, tests that they shouldn't have, treatment for things that they do not have because they fear to be sued.

It also ignores the subsequent effect of such treatments. We now have resistant strains of bugs to our antibiotics because they have been over-prescribed making all treatments more expensive and our ability to fight off disease less effective, 5 tests when 2 would have done make all of our insurance costs rise, not just the doctor's, 5 doctors in the room, 2 anesthesiologists, and more nurses than necessary to ensure they are protected from lawsuits make even surgeries more expensive than necessary. Our litigious society does effect all of our lives, and not always in a way that even gets close to "protecting" society from those "evil" doctors.
Click to expand...

He's been told this before at least twice and with data to back it up. Lib-tards like Apple simply pretend that the facts that dispute their opinions don't exist.

You mentioned insurance costs. I know several doctors who no longer do OB because the cost of malpractice insurance is too high. Every mother expects their baby to come out perfect, be a great student, graduate college cum laude and make $100k/ year. Then they sue when that doesn't happen.
 
Southern Man said:
He's been told this before at least twice and with data to back it up. Lib-tards like Apple simply pretend that the facts that dispute their opinions don't exist.

You mentioned insurance costs. I know several doctors who no longer do OB because the cost of malpractice insurance is too high. Every mother expects their baby to come out perfect, be a great student, graduate college cum laude and make $100k/ year. Then they sue when that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Yup, another cost to society, the best of the best often leave the practice because costs in certain areas of medicine make it unfeasible and/or unprofitable to be in that practice. But we should ignore that cost because lawyers and their lobby give more money to democrats than any other single profession. Apple strategically ignores what he believes can help elect his "team" rather than actually help the US go into a future unburdened by irresponsible legislation that perpetuates the litigious nature of our society and continues to push costs up for all things, not just health care.
 
Damocles said:
If it was solely the lawsuits and the insurance that rose in cost because of it then you'd have a point. But all the studies ignore the effect of defensive medicine, where people are given medication that they shouldn't be, tests that they shouldn't have, treatment for things that they do not have because they fear to be sued.

It also ignores the subsequent effect of such treatments. We now have resistant strains of bugs to our antibiotics because they have been over-prescribed making all treatments more expensive and our ability to fight off disease less effective, 5 tests when 2 would have done make all of our insurance costs rise, not just the doctor's, 5 doctors in the room, 2 anesthesiologists, and more nurses than necessary to ensure they are protected from lawsuits make even surgeries more expensive than necessary. Our litigious society does effect all of our lives, and not always in a way that even gets close to "protecting" society from those "evil" doctors.
Click to expand...


The latest CBO report on tort reform legislation includes the costs of defensive medicine and puts the cost savings at 0.5%. Tort reform just doesn't do much of anything on the cost front.
 
Damocles said:
Yup, another cost to society, the best of the best often leave the practice because costs in certain areas of medicine make it unfeasible and/or unprofitable to be in that practice. But we should ignore that cost because lawyers and their lobby give more money to democrats than any other single profession. Apple strategically ignores what he believes can help elect his "team" rather than actually help the US go into a future unburdened by irresponsible legislation that perpetuates the litigious nature of our society and continues to push costs up for all things, not just health care.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, since product liability has become a huge issue. It seems that "let the buyer beware" has gone out the window since folks don't want to accept personal responsibility. What does a football helmet cost these days? I think the cheapest ones for high school go for $100, for a plastic bucket with some foam. How much of the cost is due to liability insurance for the company who makes them, and the one that sells them?
 
NigelTufnel said:
The latest CBO report on tort reform legislation includes the costs of defensive medicine and puts the cost savings at 0.5%. Tort reform just doesn't do much of anything on the cost front.
Click to expand...
CBO cannot use any numbers other than those provided by those who create their "studies" (even if any small bit of common sense can tell them the numbers are woefully inaccurate), since the study was submitted by those who wanted to continue without any reform in this area it is subsequently as unrealistic to take it as having any more value than the silly "cost" predictions after they are forced to assume any ridiculous assumption given them on laws submitted by legislators.
 
Southern Man said:
Since the actual cost is between 5 to 9%, this is one more reason why the CBO figures on Obamacare shouldn't be trusted.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=630194&postcount=30
Click to expand...


Actually, the CBO looked at the Kessler and McClellan studies mentioned in that piece and looked at more current studies (the Kessler and McClellan study is from 1996) in reaching its conclusion.

You can read all about it here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
 
Damocles said:
CBO cannot use any numbers other than those provided by those who create their "studies" (even if any small bit of common sense can tell them the numbers are woefully inaccurate), since the study was submitted by those who wanted to continue without any reform in this area it is subsequently as unrealistic to take it as having any more value than the silly "cost" predictions after they are forced to assume any ridiculous assumption given them on laws submitted by legislators.
Click to expand...


This particular study was requested by Orinn Hatch, a proponent of tort reform. Are you suggesting that Orinn Hatch doesn't really want tort reform and submitted bullshit information to the CBO to get it to reach a conclusion at odds with his public position?

And where are the studies showing these remarkable costs savings that you think can be achieved? Oh, right. There aren't any. And the one state that has adopted tort reform akin to what right-wingers want, Texas, has seen its healthcare costs continue to increase unabated.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, the CBO looked at the Kessler and McClellan studies mentioned in that piece and looked at more current studies (the Kessler and McClellan study is from 1996) in reaching its conclusion.

You can read all about it here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
Click to expand...
Your link is a summary report, and says this about the issue:

Replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.
...

Other recent research seeks to reconcile some earlier results that appeared to be contradictory. Currie and MacLeod (2008) have suggested that certain components of tort reform, such as changes in the rules on joint-and-several liability...
...physicians may ..increase volume and intensity in response to reform of joint-and-several liability rules.
Click to expand...

Without seeing the actual Currie and MacLeod (2008) report, there is no way to see if it makes sense. That paper is available here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12478
You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.
Click to expand...

You may do so if you want to use it as a source.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This particular study was requested by Orinn Hatch, a proponent of tort reform. Are you suggesting that Orinn Hatch doesn't really want tort reform and submitted bullshit information to the CBO to get it to reach a conclusion at odds with his public position?

And where are the studies showing these remarkable costs savings that you think can be achieved? Oh, right. There aren't any. And the one state that has adopted tort reform akin to what right-wingers want, Texas, has seen its healthcare costs continue to increase unabated.
Click to expand...
I am suggesting that Orrin Hatch is a legislator and therefore limited to the information he had from specific studies neither of which covered the Defensive Medicine Costs when accounting the "would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent."

In fact, that is up in the beginning and clearly indicates it is only speaking of the doctor's insurance costs.

When it does speak to Defensive Medicine it only covers entities that are solely paid for by the Federal Government and who had the ability to reduce "Defensive Medicine" previous to TORT reform in studied areas because of lesser ability of the patient to sue them directly, even with that they were able to reduce costs after TORT reform. It also specifically only covered the programs that they had at the time (not Obamacare, imagine adding all the new costs and those arenas that are not federal programs and thus protected some from the lawsuits to begin with).
 
Damocles said:
I am suggesting that Orrin Hatch is a legislator and therefore limited to the information he had from specific studies neither of which covered the Defensive Medicine Costs when accounting the "would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent."

In fact, that is up in the beginning and clearly indicates it is only speaking of the doctor's insurance costs.

When it does speak to Defensive Medicine it only covers entities that are solely paid for by the Federal Government and who had the ability to reduce "Defensive Medicine" previous to TORT reform in studied areas because of lesser ability of the patient to sue them directly, even with that they were able to reduce costs after TORT reform. It also specifically only covered the programs that they had at the time (not Obamacare, imagine adding all the new costs and those arenas that are not federal programs and thus protected some from the lawsuits to begin with).
Click to expand...


You're so completely wrong it isn't even worth responding. Suffice it to say that the CBO looked at all available evidence in calculating the minimal costs savings, not just to the federal government, but on overall health spending, that would occur with implementation of tort reform and there just isn't much savings.
 
Southern Man said:
The debate issue here is that the Democrats usurped the Constitution. Are you now admitting this?
Click to expand...

They didn't usurp anything. Certainly not the Constitution when the purpose of the Constitution is spelled out in the Preamble; promote the general welfare. Unless you believe ones health has nothing to do with their welfare.
 
apple0154 said:
They didn't usurp anything. Certainly not the Constitution when the purpose of the Constitution is spelled out in the Preamble; promote the general welfare. Unless you believe ones health has nothing to do with their welfare.
Click to expand...
Your "Energizer Bunny" method of debate is a loser. I've schooled you on this at least twice now, you've as much as admitted that each time, now you repeat your original statements, proving yourself either unable to remember what happened yesterday or simply a liar. Take your pick.

Do you know who James Madison was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top