A group of men in Congress are trying to take away the rights of women in the nation’s capital

343 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

Lets recap so I can make sure I am understanding you correctly.

Coming from a lying hypocrite such as yourself, I doubt your 'recap' will cover all that we have discussed. Nor will it have you address how you appear to complain that 'govenment will ration'--but, then, you seem to have no problem whatsoever about letting people die on the street that cannot pay up what your for-profit industry charges. And, not only do you have no problem with that, you don't seem to see that as, itself, 'rationing'--which, when you understand that 'rationing' is 'limiting the distribution', it certainly is. I'll have a little more to say about that in a minute. By basic point here is that, since you apparently can be nothing but a lying hypocrite about all sorts of issues we've discussed--rationing, corporate personhood, the 'purity' of the for-profit initiative, etc.--I doubt you can be either honest nor complete about any 'recap' of yours. But, let's see:

You want the government to pay for everyone’s health care with no restrictions of limitations so drug addicts can get transplants. No profit for hospitals, no profit for drug makers, no profit for equipment makers, no insurance health insurance companies at all, and no suing for malpractice at all. All drugs life saving or cures are to be given away free intellectual rights no longer apply.

Well, as a follow-up on yours and camaroman's discussion, I will be willing to bet you that if those drug addicts are in prison, they can get whatever medical care they need--including transplants--paid for by the taxpayers that you say will either have to 'pay up or die'--as you claim that's not 'rationing'.

Did I say anything against suing for malpractice? My whole point on that is that a person can sue for medical malpractice whether they have paid anything or nothing. If medicine is a product like corporatists such as yourself try to suggest, would someone that paid nothing for a product from Wal-Mart be able to sue if that free product didn't work right? And, to follow more along your irrational lying hypocrisy, since that person paid nothing for that product, wouldn't that be considered stealing? So, now, that would be like someone that stole a product from Wal-Mart suing because it didn't work. Where's your 'for-profit' incentive there, dipshit? But, in case you are just that dense and not that purposely ignorant, the point of bringing up the fact that a person can sue for medical malpractice whether they pay or not goes right to issue that the application of medical care is to be seen as a right--and not a privilege--since even non-payers can sue just like they paid everything. Do you see that point? Or, are you just that fucking stupid--and that much of a lying hypocrite--that you can't even see that you are contradicting yourself?

So, since you are adding medical malpractice lawsuits and, therefore, by such an inclusion, giving people the right to sue for medical malpractice whether they pay or not, what's your whole point about 'for profit medicine'? That ability to sue in that manner means that medicine is to be seen as a legal right--not a 'privileged product'. Which, gets to my whole point, since EMTALA approaches medicine as being universally available, and medical malpractice litigation rights approach medicine as being universally sueable (whether you pay or not), why is medicine's payment structure being done as if it is to be a privileged, restricted, for-profit, product? And, since you are even allowing medical malpractice litigation rights, what's your whole point about medicine being a 'for-profit product', dipshit? Or, just in your 'special' case, you are limiting those that can sue for medical malpracice only to those that truly 'pay up'? Did you really think this through, dumbass?

I was going to say more about rationing but, since I see that you can't even be consistent with your claims, I suspect that you wouldn't even try to understand the point. I will say that I'm not against people making money--I am against the institutional 'for-profit motive' preempting any and all incentives to anything like 'moral and ethical principles' because I don't think that 'we' can have a civil society without them. Also, when it comes to the application of medicine, there is always some form of rationing ('limiting the distribution')--but, I believe that the professionals, themselves, can 'ration out' medicine in a fairer, more sequential, step-wise, fashion than any 'for-profit' institution acting like you do in the mafia-form of 'rationing' you endorse--'pay up or else die'. And, if it were a universally financed program (like EMTALA and medical malpractice litigation rights already imply medicine as a universal right), professionals could do that fairer, more sequential, step-wise, fashion of 'rationing out medical care' in a manner that is consistent with medical knowledge--not 'for-profit incentives'. Do you understand that, workingman? Or, does you 'recap' include anything besides your ignorant applicatons of the 'for-profit motive'--even as you condone medicine as a right at least to the point that, even if you don't pay at all, you can sue if the treatment goes wrong....and that you don't see your own contradictions in that is just remarkable.....are you really thinking about this--or just reading off a script? Again, I would understand your position better if you were being paid to be such an ignorant, stupid, self-contradicting, hypocritical, ass as you are here.

Yet another vorbose post that did not answer any questions at all

I have been been saying the same thing since we started down this path you are just to stupid to understand it..

No government welfare to include medical Care for any reason to any one. You keep saying that the government pays for the 20 percent that costs 80 percent of their budget. Well dumb one most of that 20 percent is madicare which was paid for by the person recieving the Care.

Just because you cant afford the choice does not mean you still do not have the choice. It is a choice to say you cant afford it..

under universal or single payer systems the doctors Will not be rationing the Care the government Will be. Name one government agency that knows more about your life than you do?

Well another dumb statement you pay for your Care after the treatment not before so if you are suing because the doctor screwed up you do not pay the Bill. So everyone that sues for malpractice does not pay the Bill but i guess that is to complicated for you.

Profits are how the hospitals give raises, buy equipment, do reseach And development And building up keep.

I have been in hospitals that offer.universal health Care they smell like urine And appear dirty but universal health Care is better because equal access to nothing is still access.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

Yet another vorbose post that did not answer any questions at all

Coming from someone that added the right to sue for medical malpractice (which can be done whether that person pays anything or nothing for their care) in with their institutionalized 'for profit' motives that were to include 'pay up or else die', what have you even addressed, workingman? Nothing more than your lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical pieces of shit.....

I have been been saying the same thing since we started down this path you are just to stupid to understand it..

I understand that the right to sue for medical malpractice, whether you pay anything or nothing, implies that medicine is a right and not a privileged product even in the 'for-profit' institutionalization of American medicine. Do you? Or, are you still too stupid to even address that point to clarify how it can even be a part of your 'pay up or else die' institutionalized 'for-profit' position....

No government welfare to include medical Care for any reason to any one.

But, you even added medical malpractice in that claim, workingman. Is that only for those that 'pay up'--or, like it is now, can that even be for those that pay nothing? And, if it can include those that pay nothing, how is that any different from medicine being a right--or getting medicine 'for free' whether someone--or something--else pays or not? Including 'government welfare'....

Quote workingman:

You keep saying that the government pays for the 20 percent that costs 80 percent of their budget. Well dumb one most of that 20 percent is madicare which was paid for by the person recieving the Care.

It's being paid by those that are being taxed on it now. So, if we follow through on that, would you say that it would be a fair government tax if the person being taxed also got the service that person were being taxed on? As it stands right now, there are some that get government to pay for their medical care (welfare, prison, and all) that may have paid no tax, still get their medical care for free, and those that pay the taxes on that have to pay extra to get the same service through your precious institutionalized for-profit system. Is that fair to you, workingman? I don't see it as fair. And, in any other place but medicine that operates with government taxes supporting anyone's application as if a right (such as education), it wouldn't be seen as fair. Why is medicine the 'exception' here, workingman? Do you have another lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical, answer to that--or are you just going to ignore that in your 'recap' once again?

Just because you cant afford the choice does not mean you still do not have the choice. It is a choice to say you cant afford it..

Is that some more of your lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical double-talk, workingman? Right in line with your 'pay up or die' position not being 'rationing' and having corporations like Wal-Mart take local governments to court because they don't want them in their communities not being 'personhood'.....

If you can't afford the choice, you don't have the choice. So, there is no choice. Is that really that hard for you to see, dipshit? Or, are you just so dense that you cannot even recognize your own contradictions....

under universal or single payer systems the doctors Will not be rationing the Care the government Will be.

Really? Is that the same form of 'rationing' that you allow institutionalized for-profit systems to have--the 'pay up or die' kind of 'rationing', workingman? Are you saying that government would act worse than that? How could the government act worse than that, workingman? Are you going to include an answer to that in your 'recap'--or just ignore it like the self-contradicting, lying hypocrite that you are? If the doctor's incentive were to make the best medical judgment on every case despite whether a profit were made or not, I think that would be more in line with good medical practice than any institutionalized, for-profit, 'pay up or die' system would have. And, unlike institutionalized for-profit systems, if a representative governmental system were actually to usurp the doctor's opinion on any one case, the people the government represented could have a say in that prospect. In your 'pay up or die' system, what say does the person have, workingman? Sue for malpractice even if they don't pay? You have offered that--but it contradicts everything else you have said about your institutionalized for-profit system. Yet, you claim you have been 'consistent'.....bullshit....

Well another dumb statement you pay for your Care after the treatment not before so if you are suing because the doctor screwed up you do not pay the Bill.

That's not the point, dipshit. The person can sue whether they were ever to pay for the bill. So, in your 'pay up or die' position that you have claimed before (remember the patient at the door to the ER that needs medical care but cannot afford it), what does this 'new position' of yours that says that the person 'can pay after the service' say about those at the ER door that cannot pay before the service? How are you going to, now, separate them out from those that, say, tell you that they will pay but really have no intention of paying anyway (just 'threaten to sue' to 'cover payment')? Are you altering your 'pay up or die' stance? Remember, you gave the impression that you had no problem with letting those that need medical care knocking at the ER door that cannot pay now be able to die on the street. Those that need your $20,000 life-saving pill that cannot pay for it don't get it--and, therefore, they can die right in front of you as you hold onto your life-saving pill. Are you changing your tune now--or just trying to waffle your way out of your self-contradictory, lying, hypocritical posturing?

What are you going to do with your $20,000 life-saving pill if someone who needs it says that they will pay you after you give it to them? Are you going to give it to them? And, then, if it doesn't work like you say it will, are they going to be able to sue without paying you (Hell, even if it does work and they don't pay you, what are you going to do? Take the 'product' back? How?)? So, if you are going to allow any person access to your $20,000 life-saving pill just on their word that they will pay you, afterwards, who is that you were going to position yourself to them with a 'pay up or die' stance in applying your 'for-profit' medical care to begin with? And, if you don't have that stance, anymore, just say so--but, then, how else can you say that medicine isn't a right without it, workingman? Remember those knocking at the ER door needing medical care that can't afford it--are you, now, going to give it to them if they say that they will 'pay you later'? Let's just see how far you will go with your lying, hypocritical, self-contradictions.....or, ignore them totally as you do...

Quote workingman:

So everyone that sues for malpractice does not pay the Bill but i guess that is to complicated for you.

Goddamn, workingman, are you going to continue to side-step the point because it doesn't fit that well into your own 'pay up or die' with the institutionalized for-profit system that you have previously disclosed? The person can sue for medical malpractice whether they ever intended on paying any of the bill or not (prisoners, welfare recipients, freeloaders, and all)--you understand that little distinction, dumbass? Would any other 'for-profit product' be able to be sued in that manner? You understand that at all? Or, is that something you will, again, ignore in any 'recap'....

Quote workingman:

Profits are how the hospitals give raises, buy equipment, do reseach And development And building up keep.

So, if that is what happens, are you saying that 'non-profit institutions' don't 'give raises, buy equipment, do research', workingman? Profits are not what hospitals do that with--profits are what institutions have left (for their investors) after those expenses have been paid. So, guess what the incentive is for those for-profit institutions to 'give raises' is? Not very high--as any nurse in any for-profit hospital can tell you. Now, buying equipment and doing research is likely a tax deduction for them. Hell, adding to the building is even supported by taxes...just another little collusion offered by government for corporations....but, you don't mind those taxes, do you, workingman? As long as it helps those for-profit institutions and not the little man/taxpaying consumer, you are all for it, aren't you, workingman? Just like your police, military, and prisons, it's not the taxes that you are against--it's what the taxes go towards--and anything that helps the taxpaying consumer, you are against. Are you going to mention that in any 'recap' that you do? You certainly can 'correct me if I'm wrong'....

I have been in hospitals that offer.universal health Care they smell like urine And appear dirty but universal health Care is better because equal access to nothing is still access.

Well, many for-profit institutions can smell the same way--even hospitals. So, can nursing homes. What they 'smell like' has nothing to do with how they are paid......in fact, since the incentive for for-profit institutions is to have less nurses forced to do more (just like most for-profit corporations seem to do now with all their real working staff), those overworked nurses have less time to clean everyone's ass....and I've seen that happen when a Catholic-supported hospital turned to a corporation to manage--and the first thing that corporation did was lay off half the nursing staff.....try again, lying hypocrite that you are......or, more likely, ignore it in your next 'recap'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

Yet another vorbose post that did not answer any questions at all

Coming from someone that added the right to sue for medical malpractice (which can be done whether that person pays anything or nothing for their care) in with their institutionalized 'for profit' motives that were to include 'pay up or else die', what have you even addressed, workingman? Nothing more than your lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical pieces of shit.....

I have been been saying the same thing since we started down this path you are just to stupid to understand it..

I understand that the right to sue for medical malpractice, whether you pay anything or nothing, implies that medicine is a right and not a privileged product even in the 'for-profit' institutionalization of American medicine. Do you? Or, are you still too stupid to even address that point to clarify how it can even be a part of your 'pay up or else die' institutionalized 'for-profit' position....

No government welfare to include medical Care for any reason to any one.

But, you even added medical malpractice in that claim, workingman. Is that only for those that 'pay up'--or, like it is now, can that even be for those that pay nothing? And, if it can include those that pay nothing, how is that any different from medicine being a right--or getting medicine 'for free' whether someone--or something--else pays or not? Including 'government welfare'....

Quote workingman:

You keep saying that the government pays for the 20 percent that costs 80 percent of their budget. Well dumb one most of that 20 percent is madicare which was paid for by the person recieving the Care.

It's being paid by those that are being taxed on it now. So, if we follow through on that, would you say that it would be a fair government tax if the person being taxed also got the service that person were being taxed on? As it stands right now, there are some that get government to pay for their medical care (welfare, prison, and all) that may have paid no tax, still get their medical care for free, and those that pay the taxes on that have to pay extra to get the same service through your precious institutionalized for-profit system. Is that fair to you, workingman? I don't see it as fair. And, in any other place but medicine that operates with government taxes supporting anyone's application as if a right (such as education), it wouldn't be seen as fair. Why is medicine the 'exception' here, workingman? Do you have another lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical, answer to that--or are you just going to ignore that in your 'recap' once again?

Just because you cant afford the choice does not mean you still do not have the choice. It is a choice to say you cant afford it..

Is that some more of your lying, self-contradictory, hypocritical double-talk, workingman? Right in line with your 'pay up or die' position not being 'rationing' and having corporations like Wal-Mart take local governments to court because they don't want them in their communities not being 'personhood'.....

If you can't afford the choice, you don't have the choice. So, there is no choice. Is that really that hard for you to see, dipshit? Or, are you just so dense that you cannot even recognize your own contradictions....

under universal or single payer systems the doctors Will not be rationing the Care the government Will be.

Really? Is that the same form of 'rationing' that you allow institutionalized for-profit systems to have--the 'pay up or die' kind of 'rationing', workingman? Are you saying that government would act worse than that? How could the government act worse than that, workingman? Are you going to include an answer to that in your 'recap'--or just ignore it like the self-contradicting, lying hypocrite that you are? If the doctor's incentive were to make the best medical judgment on every case despite whether a profit were made or not, I think that would be more in line with good medical practice than any institutionalized, for-profit, 'pay up or die' system would have. And, unlike institutionalized for-profit systems, if a representative governmental system were actually to usurp the doctor's opinion on any one case, the people the government represented could have a say in that prospect. In your 'pay up or die' system, what say does the person have, workingman? Sue for malpractice even if they don't pay? You have offered that--but it contradicts everything else you have said about your institutionalized for-profit system. Yet, you claim you have been 'consistent'.....bullshit....

Well another dumb statement you pay for your Care after the treatment not before so if you are suing because the doctor screwed up you do not pay the Bill.

That's not the point, dipshit. The person can sue whether they were ever to pay for the bill. So, in your 'pay up or die' position that you have claimed before (remember the patient at the door to the ER that needs medical care but cannot afford it), what does this 'new position' of yours that says that the person 'can pay after the service' say about those at the ER door that cannot pay before the service? How are you going to, now, separate them out from those that, say, tell you that they will pay but really have no intention of paying anyway (just 'threaten to sue' to 'cover payment')? Are you altering your 'pay up or die' stance? Remember, you gave the impression that you had no problem with letting those that need medical care knocking at the ER door that cannot pay now be able to die on the street. Those that need your $20,000 life-saving pill that cannot pay for it don't get it--and, therefore, they can die right in front of you as you hold onto your life-saving pill. Are you changing your tune now--or just trying to waffle your way out of your self-contradictory, lying, hypocritical posturing?

What are you going to do with your $20,000 life-saving pill if someone who needs it says that they will pay you after you give it to them? Are you going to give it to them? And, then, if it doesn't work like you say it will, are they going to be able to sue without paying you (Hell, even if it does work and they don't pay you, what are you going to do? Take the 'product' back? How?)? So, if you are going to allow any person access to your $20,000 life-saving pill just on their word that they will pay you, afterwards, who is that you were going to position yourself to them with a 'pay up or die' stance in applying your 'for-profit' medical care? If you don't have that stance, anymore, just say so--but, then, how else can you say that medicine isn't a right without it, workingman? Let's just see how far you will go with your lying, hypocritical, self-contradictions.....or, ignore them totally as you do...

Quote workingman:

So everyone that sues for malpractice does not pay the Bill but i guess that is to complicated for you.

Goddamn, workingman, are you going to continue to side-step the point because it doesn't fit that well into your own 'pay up or die' with the institutionalized for-profit system that you have previously disclosed? The person can sue for medical malpractice whether they ever intended on paying any of the bill or not (prisoners, welfare recipients, freeloaders, and all)--you understand that little distinction, dumbass? Would any other 'for-profit product' be able to be sued in that manner? You understand that at all? Or, is that something you will, again, ignore in any 'recap'....

Quote workingman:

Profits are how the hospitals give raises, buy equipment, do reseach And development And building up keep.

So, if that is what happens, are you saying that 'non-profit institutions' don't 'give raises, buy equipment, do research', workingman? Profits are not what hospitals do that with--profits are what institutions have left (for their investors) after those expenses have been paid. So, guess what the incentive is for those for-profit institutions to 'give raises' is? Not very high--as any nurse in any for-profit hospital can tell you. Now, buying equipment and doing research is likely a tax deduction for them. Hell, adding to the building is even supported by taxes...just another little collusion offered by government for corporations....but, you don't mind those taxes, do you, workingman? As long as it helps those for-profit institutions and not the little man/taxpaying consumer, you are all for it, aren't you, workingman? Just like your police, military, and prisons, it's not the taxes that you are against--it's what the taxes go towards--and anything that helps the taxpaying consumer, you are against. Are you going to mention that in any 'recap' that you do? You certainly can 'correct me if I'm wrong'....

I have been in hospitals that offer.universal health Care they smell like urine And appear dirty but universal health Care is better because equal access to nothing is still access.

Well, many for-profit institutions can smell the same way--even hospitals. So, can nursing homes. What they 'smell like' has nothing to do with how they are paid......in fact, since the incentive for for-profit institutions is to have less nurses forced to do more (just like most for-profit corporations seem to do now with all their real working staff), those overworked nurses have less time to clean everyone's ass....and I've seen that happen when a Catholic-supported hospital turned to a corporation to manage--and the first thing that corporation did was lay off half the nursing staff.....try again, lying hypocrite that you are......or, more likely, ignore it in your next 'recap'.....

ok lets go over this one more time because you do not understand english... 100 percent of the people who sue for malpractice do not pay the bill until the case is settled. so being able to sue if you pay or not does NOT make medical care a right. being able to sue if the person does some thing wrong is contract law. which you sign when you are entered into the hospital as well as saying you are responsible for paying the bill. if you never intend to pay the bill that is theift and fraud and should be prosicuted as such but it is hard to prove in the melpractice case. all others should be dealt with according to the law.

ok dumb ass one more time for the stupid people. if it is life threating where they are going to die without care you fix them up and then you force them the pay. just like when you order a burger when you are done eating you pay the bill. medical care is the same way no intention of paying the bill you are comminting theift and or fraud and should be dealt with according to the law. the fact that you can sue for malpractice is irrelevant.

i understand that profits are what is left over after you take care of all of your expenses. even non profit hospitals charge you extra to make up for the people that stoled their products and services. that is what causes the costs to go up.

the smell does not have anything to do with how they are paid but if they have no money to purchase anything to clean with then they will smell like that just like all of the universal health care hospitals i have been in, in every other country i have traveled too.

you added the medical melpractice to the claim. I have alwasy stated the same thing no welfare to anyone for any reason. medical malpractice has nothing to do with that but yet again you are to dumb to understand english.

Like i said in my post you want no health care insurance companies, no profit for hospitals, no profit for drug makers, no profit for equipment makers, all life saving medications to be given away for free. so are you going to address anything in the recap that i got incorrect or just whin about medical melpractice.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

100 percent of the people who sue for malpractice do not pay the bill until the case is settled.

But, they can sue whether they intend on paying any of the bill prior to that lawsuit, workingman. Got that? And, do they really ever pay the entity's 'bill' that they are suing, workingman? I doubt it....

Quote workingman:

so being able to sue if you pay or not does NOT make medical care a right. being able to sue if the person does some thing wrong is contract law.

In the 'for-profit' world, what other 'product' can you do that with, workingman? The right to sue whether you pay or not implies that you have the right to have that medical care do what it says it will do--whether you pay or not. What other 'product' can you do that with, workingman? And, if you have the right to have medical care do what it says it will do whether you pay or not--tell me something, workingman, with its application, how is that different from a universal right in any way?

And, if there were a contract that says one party provides something and the other party can sue over what they provide whether that person pays or not, in any other field or with any other product, would that be a 'fair contract' to you, workingman? Why, using your own supposed definitions, workingman, I think that would constitute slavery by jurisprudence, wouldn't it?

Quote workingman:

which you sign when you are entered into the hospital as well as saying you are responsible for paying the bill.

But, so what, that person decided to renege on paying you for that $20,000 life-saving pill anyway (even though they planned on suing you had it not worked). Now what, workingman? In any other contract that involves a for-profit product, all you would have to do is go get your product back. How are you going to do that here, workingman? Are you going to check the guy's shit to see if the pill will come out--and do you think it would still be worth $20,000? How are you going to serve out that contract, workingman? And, what happened to your 'pay up or die' stance in these cases? Has it been altered now to be covered by 'contract law'? Isn't 'contract law' set in 'written law'--and doesn't the present 'written law' include EMTALA--and doesn't that hold the power as if a 'contract'--and doesn't that 'contract' claim that any person in any ER that has any Medicare or Medicaid supplements paid to it (which is most if not all institutions) can present to that ER with life, limb, or laboring pregnancy-related issues and have the right to be treated (whether they can pay or not)? And, is this yet another one of your side-stepping, self-contradicting, lying, hypocritical, statements on your part, workingman? Can you correlate, in any way, this, yet again, new issue you offer on 'contract law' with the EMTALA as a form of contractual imposition to universal availability (along with the universal right to sue for medical malpractice as its universal applicability) with anything that you previously offered of a institutionalized 'for-profit' initiative to be able to posture with a 'pay up or else' position whether that be at the ER door--or with your $20,000 life-saving pill? Or, once again, are you just going to ignore that in your next 'recap'....

Quote workingman:

if you never intend to pay the bill that is theift and fraud and should be prosicuted as such but it is hard to prove in the melpractice case. all others should be dealt with according to the law. \

And, what can the law do to that person that reneged on paying you for your $20,000 life-saving pill? Will 'the law' check that person's shit for you to see if it can recoup 'the product'? Or, just what can 'the law' do in that case, workingman? Get a 'judgment' against them? What if they were a freeloader that didn't have anything to lose anyway? What then, workingman? Sort of sounds like the words of that song 'Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose', doesn't it? So, does the 'freedom to sue' without paying really go along with your 'corporate freedom' to claim 'pay up or die', workingman? Really. Or, just some more of your side-stepping, lying, hypocritical claims.....to avoid of course, as all corporatists want to avoid, finally, and completely, addressing whether medicine is a 'right' or a 'privilege'....

You know, I know that you say it's 'too much' for you, but, you don't really address everything that I say, do you? Even as you copy off all of it. Nothing about how you misuse the term 'rationing' (when you have said a for-profit corporation can say 'pay up or die') or 'corporate personhood' (when a corporation suing a local government for discrimination is just like personhood)....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

if it is life threating where they are going to die without care you fix them up and then you force them the pay.

Well, this just gets better, workingman. Are you saying the same thing with your $20,000 life-saving pill that took all that for-profit institution's money and expense to develop? And, read above. If that person decides to renege on your 'contract', what are you going to do about it, workingman? Check his shit out to 'recoup the product'? Get a judgment? Whoopee.....is this some more 'slavery by jurisprudence'?

just like when you order a burger when you are done eating you pay the bill.

Just like it, workingman? You can't come up with a better analogy? Maybe that burger thief is claiming that burger didn't taste right--or maybe that burger thief is now complaining that that burger gave him the shits--will that burger thief get to sue? Or, just get his burger for free, anyway? That's a lot of effort on the burger thief's part just to get that burger for free isn't it? And, come on, workingman, how is that burger like your $20,000 life-saving pill? Would a $20,000 live-saving pil thief be more likely to go to extraordinary efforts than the burger thief to get 'their product for free'? And, really, what is the similarities, otherwise, here? The only way I could see how they would correlate is if you go looking for your burger back in that guy's shit. And, you know what, you would probably more likely go to jail for stealing that burger than you ever would for taking your $20,000 life-saving pill and reneging on paying for it. Right, workingman? And, do you see why? Hell, if you take that $20,000 life-saving pill reneger to jail and they actually had needed your 'life-saving services', the jail would probably be responsible for paying for the rest of that patient's medical bills--again, at the taxpayer's expense. You got any other 'great solutions' and 'great analogies' here, workingman?

Quote workingman:

medical care is the same way no intention of paying the bill you are comminting theift and or fraud and should be dealt with according to the law. the fact that you can sue for malpractice is irrelevant.

But, you see, workingman, you saying that it is irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant. How are you going to tell if a person who promises to pay their medical bill after receiving their services intended on paying or not? How are you going to tell if that person's original intentions were to sue if everything didn't turn out alright--and not pay even if they did turn out right--or not? In fact, I bet even with EMTALA, every person that gets seen (whether they can pay or not) has that same 'contractual relationship' that you mention. Why didn't you mention it at the beginning of this discussion instead of trying to tack it onto later when you've figured out that you have overstepped your position to claim anything like a 'pay up or else' posturing in the interest of the institutionalized 'for-profit' system, haven't you, you lying, hypocritical, ass?

Now, tell me like you've never told me before, what are you going to do with a person that shows up at the ER door needing medical care but cannot afford it? What are you going to do with your $20,000 life-saving pill when someone says they will 'sign a contract' that promises they will 'pay later'? You got any real answers to these questions, dipshit? Or, just side-stepping, lying, hypocritical ones?

Quote workingman:

i understand that profits are what is left over after you take care of all of your expenses. even non profit hospitals charge you extra to make up for the people that stoled their products and services. that is what causes the costs to go up.

But, whether its government, corporations, or nobody directly paying for all these medical services, workingman, who is everyone of those entities really charging when it comes to how this system pays for its care? Why, it's the same entity, isn't it, workingman? The taxpaying consumer. Now, tell me like you have never told me before, workingman, why is the taxpaying consumer having to pay government for someone else's medical care (as if a right)--and, then, they have to turn around and pay a corporate entity separately for their own medical care (as if it were a bankrupting privilege)? You got any 'real answers', workingman? Or, just some more side-stepping, lying, hypocritical, ones--that actually don't even directly address the issues?

the smell does not have anything to do with how they are paid but if they have no money to purchase anything to clean with then they will smell like that just like all of the universal health care hospitals i have been in, in every other country i have traveled too.

So what? For-profits can smell just as bad and, since the whole point of for-profits is to eek out as much work with as few a workers as it possibly can, it's more likely to happen. In fact, since you and I do seem to agree that for-profit institutions have no impetus to really be based on any 'moral or ethical principles', I even suspect that those Johnson and Johnson ads trying to get more people to go into nursing is just the for-profit's way of trying to, once again, increase the number of workers available so they can offer less payment to each. You know, just like not offering poor women the option to abort a child she may not want and may not be able to afford so they can serve as fodder for cheap labor--and profits for criminal institutions.

Quote workingman:

you added the medical melpractice to the claim. I have alwasy stated the same thing no welfare to anyone for any reason. medical malpractice has nothing to do with that but yet again you are to dumb to understand english.

Yeah, coming from someone that has waffled on almost every statement that have made, I'll take your accusations with a big-ass grain of salt. Read above--and, then, tell me how you add the universal right to medical malpractice (that goes along with the EMTALA law) to a system that gives itself, in any way, any capacity to say 'pay up or else die' in order to recoup its supposed 'costs' and gain its 'profits' accordingly. Any real ideas, workingman? Or, just more side-stepping and hypocritical lies claiming 'corporate profit' as the real motive while you give just any Tom, Dick, or Harry, whether they pay or not, whether they really intend to pay or not, the right to sue for their medical care, anyway.....Any way to really make that make sense, workingman? Why don't you try--like you have never tried before....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am going make this easy for you to understand.

Health Care is not a right, the federal government has no authority to pay for any non emoloyees health Care.

There is no orgin of debt to pay for strangers health Care through taxes to include abortions if you want one you pay for it. If the unwanted kid ends up in jail we Will deal with that when it happens And he can be locked in his cage just like the wanted kids in jail.

Life threatening injures you fix if they can not pay find a charity if the charity Will not pay sue them into paying if that is not enough take everything they have And keep taking until they are paid up just like the irs. If it is not life threating send them down the road.

Pay up or die is fine with me, because the worst for profit hospital in the us is better than 98 percent of the universal government provided hospitals outside the u.s., because paying costumers Will not go to a shitty or dirty hospital.

And on a side note there has been a standing army in the u.s. Since 1775 along with the navy And the marine corps in 1776.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Real care, compassion, and sympathy for your fellow human being there antipatheticman!!! Sad...

I have a hard time feeling for some adults that have put themselves in a bad situtation through their own devices, but to lack compassion for a child that did nothing nor had any control over a bad devastating illness, injury, or whatever bad situation , through no fault of their own is the ulitimate in heartlessness. We should help the least among us and I would rather my tax dollars go for that than the brutal and senseless murder of innocents in an illegal, immoral, corporate interest protecting fucking phonie war. Where is your compassion man?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Real care, compassion, and sympathy for your fellow human being there antipatheticman!!! Sad...

I have a hard time feeling for some adults that have put themselves in a bad situtation through their own devices, but to lack compassion for a child that did nothing nor had any control over a bad devastating illness, injury, or whatever bad situation , through no fault of their own is the ulitimate in heartlessness. We should help the least among us and I would rather my tax dollars go for that than the brutal and senseless murder of innocents in an illegal, immoral, corporate interest protecting fucking phonie war. Where is your compassion man?

I have no problem helping the least among us that is what charity is for not tax dollars. I have compassion i give to charities And do charitable works. I just do not want tax dollars doing it because you turn some into economic slaves to others.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

So, you would rather your tax dollars help enrich the military industrial corporations while fighting phony,. illegal, immoral, innocent men, women and children murdering, unconstitutional so-called wars on terror, when in reality it is government (our tax money and young men and women) being used to protect the foreign interests of big multinational corporations. You really don't see the corporate/government collusion, do you?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

So, you would rather your tax dollars help enrich the military industrial corporations while fighting phony,. illegal, immoral, innocent men, women and children murdering, unconstitutional so-called wars on terror, when in reality it is government (our tax money and young men and women) being used to protect the foreign interests of big multinational corporations. You really don't see the corporate/government collusion, do you?

The wars in iraq And afganistán are not illegal or unconstitutional the president followed the constitution by asking congress approve it.. All war has a bit of morality to it. It is not an eaay thing to kill a man, when it is you have lost your soul And your morals.

Most of but not all of tbe people killed in combat are not innocent or kids. Some times you Will have a few civilians caught up in the fighting but that happens just like friendly fire.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

On a side not camaroman i am surprised you dont blame this on the catholic church that war goes all the way back to the crusades

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Bossman made some reference to using tax dollars to help the needy being 'enslaved" or something like that. Incredible! How about the idea that "your money" is about your personal economics, not what you "invest" beyond your own needs and personal finance? If nobody can buy or sell another with wealth beyond personal utility, or 'leverage,' then the image of enslavement would get some relief. But to fear that the poor would "enslave" the wealthy by their human needs and need for charity cash to cover them is just to admit that the society you live in is bigger than your church. It is nuts and totally impractical to believe that churches can or should be the agency of social responsibility for the state unless you want a new theocracy with the church doing education too.

I have a huge respect for the social ministries of churches, as well as some serious problems when they are used to exploit and evangelize rather than to meet human needs. I see the churches as real partners to the state in the provision of social services in many areas. It is possible to work together on the social and human needs without introducing religion and dogma. But, all the people I know who do this work in churches are strong advocates of public funding and strong social welfare programs. They are just "first responders."

What smart business people know is that Commerce depends upon a good society, and "small businesses" and Main St. need a healthy Middle Class base of customers and employees. Taxes become an investment in the infrastructure of business prosperity rather than an "overhead," and were business people interested in the positive role the state plays in zoning and other regulations, a cooperative process could make the red tape and other parts of bureaucracy less difficult. That too would be part of being able to do business in a good society.

Bossman keeps saying that he can choose to be generous in charity, but sees having to share as a fundamental reality to be grating against an even more important moral principle for him. To be taxed to have a good society cuts him to the quick as a moral outrage. Pitiful.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

But he is ok with his (mine and yours,also, I presume) tax monies supporting immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional multinational corporate interests and keeping private for profit (at taxpayer expense) prisons full. Without seeing the irony of those prisoners getting free medical, dental, educational sevices provided to them, also at taxpayer expense without realizing there is a better way to invest those tax monies to better benefit society as a whole rather than the 1% as it is now.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

But he is ok with his (mine and yours,also, I presume) tax monies supporting immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional multinational corporate interests and keeping private for profit (at taxpayer expense) prisons full. Without seeing the irony of those prisoners getting free medical, dental, educational sevices provided to them, also at taxpayer expense without realizing there is a better way to invest those tax monies to better benefit society as a whole rather than the 1% as it is now.

I am not fine with for profit prisons but if the tax payers in the state choose to sell their prisons that is their call.

As far as how we treat are prisons i think it should be way more strict. No libraries, no school, no yard time, no t.v., only basic medical attention And no wieght rooms. I am thinking a 5 x7 cage with a slot in the door for food. Once a week let out for a three min shower one at a time. No human contact except for basic medical Care And food delievery.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Yeah, don't you be accusin' him of wanting to waste any money on prisoners.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

MY bad, SORRY!!! NOT!!! The private for profit prison system lobbies for ever more stricter laws, especially in regards to drug laws, so as to obtain more customers from the legal system. And they make sure those sevices are provided for the prisoners because it is more profitable NOT more humane.

Illegal immigrants are their best customers though.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012526112812469344.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

MY bad, SORRY!!! NOT!!! The private for profit prison system lobbies for ever more stricter laws, especially in regards to drug laws, so as to obtain more customers from the legal system. And they make sure those sevices are provided for the prisoners because it is more profitable NOT more humane.

Illegal immigrants are their best customers though.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012526112812469344.html

Nice getting your news from the terrorist news network

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

Health Care is not a right, the federal government has no authority to pay for any non emoloyees health Care.

As you constantly ignore the facts, workingman. Health care is approached by some as a right--at the increasing burden of payment on the taxpaying consumer that has to buy it, otherwise. Now what, workingman? You got any quips on how to solve that? Or, are you just going to ignore that point and restate your senseless propositions of 'pay up or else' without addressing them to the reality of American medicine as it exists today?

Quote workingman:

There is no orgin of debt to pay for strangers health Care through taxes to include abortions if you want one you pay for it.

Then, you'll pay for the consequences of such unwanted and uncared for children--one way or the other. One way you seem to offer a blank check for at taxpayer's expense is the prison system. So, as I've said, you don't seem to be so much against taxes as you are what such taxes are spent on. And, with regards to the American health care system, despite how what you say, some of your taxes are spent on some 'strangers' getting health care at no cost to them as if it were a right. That's the real facts in this issue. Again, what are you going to do about it? Is it 'pay up or else' for everyone--or a single payer covering everyone's right? The dysfunctional 'split decision' that the American system has now is just a way to escalate profit-taking by the corporate-government colluders at the added costs to the taxpaying consumers who pay for all the expenditures in this 'system'--whether corporate, government, or non-payer. Do you disagree with that point? Or, is your modus operandi just to ignore the facts as you try to mislead with your supposed proposal? I do believe that ignorance despite the knowledge is hypocrisy--as you are hypocritically addressing this issue and these facts. And, if you don't think that these are the facts as American health care is administered today, then you need to describe what you think that facts are. Not just your bullshit on how 'no one has the right' as if that represents the facts of the American health care system because I know that some can approach it as if they do have the right--at the expense of others that have to approach it as if a bankrupting privilege. Just like I've said.

Quote workingman:

Life threatening injures you fix if they can not pay find a charity if the charity Will not pay sue them into paying if that is not enough take everything they have And keep taking until they are paid up just like the irs. If it is not life threating send them down the road.

Well, knowing the inexactness of medical presentations like I do, your synopsis here is quaint and unrealistic--and it's not like I haven't given you examples to show my point. A diabetic presents to the ER with weakness--that could be a life threatening heart condition or just a urinary tract infection. Without evaluating that patient (therefore, NOT 'sending them down the road'), how are you going to tell? Especially if that person, whether they can pay for it or not, can sue you if you miss something that makes them suffer for it? Huh, workingman? You constantly ignore addressing real world problems in the application of medical care. Is this going to be 'pay up or else' (as if a privilege) for everyone--or 'universal accessibility' (as if a right) whether they pay or not? And, claiming that you can sue for payment is not addressing that point--nor responsibly dealing with the real world issues it involves....

Quote workingman:

Pay up or die is fine with me, because the worst for profit hospital in the us is better than 98 percent of the universal government provided hospitals outside the u.s., because paying costumers Will not go to a shitty or dirty hospital.

But, that's whether or not 'non-paying customers' die from it or not. And, that's not 'rationing' (ie. 'limiting the distribution') when care isn't offered--and people die from it? Do those people still have the right to sue for such damages, workingman? And, if they do, why are you withholding it from them? What shit are you trying to pull here?

Quote workingman:

And on a side note there has been a standing army in the u.s. Since 1775 along with the navy And the marine corps in 1776.

I sincerely doubt it--but, just for argument's sake, once again, let's say that your ignorant propositions represent all reality. Why did the Constitution put a time limit on how Congress paid for it? You see, their Constitution said that they had to bring payment up for an Army every two years--unlike the Navy that was to protect trade from pirates. Remember, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 says this about Armies (emphasis will be mine):

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Why did the founders limit the appropriations to two years, workingman? Especially if there has been, as you say, a 'standing army since 1775'--and, therefore, before there was even a U.S. Constitution. Any ideas, workingman? Or more lies and misrepresentations on your part? But, again, if you are here to discuss real issues, tell me why, unlike the Navy, there was a limit to the appropriations of Armies set in the Constitution if the founders intended on there being a 'standing army'?

And, again, who are you trying to fool here, workingman? Despite what you say, workingman, there are many resources written about this time that contradict your rather Orwellian attempt to rewrite history. Using Great Britain's 'standing army' as the example, many founders saw 'standing armies' more there to 'endorse empire' than 'provide for the common defense'--and, as part of the point in each citizen having the right to bear arms, there were to be local mliltias as the first line defense of an invasion before a regular army were formed.....and there are many resources showing that, also, workingman. At any rate, if the purpose was for a 'standing army', why limit the appropriations of Congress to two years?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

Health Care is not a right, the federal government has no authority to pay for any non emoloyees health Care.

As you constantly ignore the facts, workingman. Health care is approached by some as a right--at the increasing burden of payment on the taxpaying consumer that has to buy it, otherwise. Now what, workingman? You got any quips on how to solve that? Or, are you just going to ignore that point and restate your senseless propositions of 'pay up or else' without addressing them to the reality of American medicine as it exists today?

Quote workingman:

There is no orgin of debt to pay for strangers health Care through taxes to include abortions if you want one you pay for it.

Then, you'll pay for the consequences of such unwanted and uncared for children--one way or the other. One way you seem to offer a blank check for at taxpayer's expense is the prison system. So, as I've said, you don't seem to be so much against taxes as you are what such taxes are spent on. And, with regards to the American health care system, despite how what you say, some of your taxes are spent on some 'strangers' getting health care at no cost to them as if it were a right. That's the real facts in this issue. Again, what are you going to do about it? Is it 'pay up or else' for everyone--or a single payer covering everyone's right? The dysfunctional 'split decision' that the American system has now is just a way to escalate profit-taking by the corporate-government colluders at the added costs to the taxpaying consumers who pay for all the expenditures in this 'system'--whether corporate, government, or non-payer. Do you disagree with that point? Or, is your modus operandi just to ignore the facts as you try to mislead with your supposed proposal? I do believe that ignorance despite the knowledge is hypocrisy--as you are hypocritically addressing this issue and these facts. And, if you don't think that these are the facts as American health care is administered today, then you need to describe what you think that facts are. Not just your bullshit on how 'no one has the right' as if that represents the facts of the American health care system because I know that some can approach it as if they do have the right--at the expense of others that have to approach it as if a bankrupting privilege. Just like I've said.

Quote workingman:

Life threatening injures you fix if they can not pay find a charity if the charity Will not pay sue them into paying if that is not enough take everything they have And keep taking until they are paid up just like the irs. If it is not life threating send them down the road.

Well, knowing the inexactness of medical presentations like I do, your synopsis here is quaint and unrealistic--and it's not like I haven't given you examples to show my point. A diabetic presents to the ER with weakness--that could be a life threatening heart condition or just a urinary tract infection. Without evaluating that patient (therefore, NOT 'sending them down the road'), how are you going to tell? Especially if that person, whether they can pay for it or not, can sue you if you miss something that makes them suffer for it? Huh, workingman? You constantly ignore addressing real world problems in the application of medical care. Is this going to be 'pay up or else' (as if a privilege) for everyone--or 'universal accessibility' (as if a right) whether they pay or not? And, claiming that you can sue for payment is not addressing that point--nor responsibly dealing with the real world issues it involves....

Quote workingman:

Pay up or die is fine with me, because the worst for profit hospital in the us is better than 98 percent of the universal government provided hospitals outside the u.s., because paying costumers Will not go to a shitty or dirty hospital.

But, that's whether or not 'non-paying customers' die from it or not. And, that's not 'rationing' (ie. 'limiting the distribution') when care isn't offered--and people die from it? Do those people still have the right to sue for such damages, workingman? And, if they do, why are you withholding it from them? What shit are you trying to pull here?

Quote workingman:

And on a side note there has been a standing army in the u.s. Since 1775 along with the navy And the marine corps in 1776.

I sincerely doubt it--but, just for argument's sake, once again, let's say that your ignorant propositions represent all reality. Why did the Constitution put a time limit on how Congress paid for it? You see, their Constitution said that they had to bring payment up for an Army every two years--unlike the Navy that was to protect trade from pirates. Remember, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 says this about Armies (emphasis will be mine):

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Why did the founders limit the appropriations to two years, workingman? Especially if there has been, as you say, a 'standing army since 1775'--and, therefore, before there was even a U.S. Constitution. Any ideas, workingman? Or more lies and misrepresentations on your part? But, again, if you are here to discuss real issues, tell me why, unlike the Navy, there was a limit to the appropriations of Armies set in the Constitution if the founders intended on there being a 'standing army'?

And, again, who are you trying to fool here, workingman? Despite what you say, workingman, there are many resources written about this time that contradict your rather Orwellian attempt to rewrite history. Using Great Britain's 'standing army' as the example, many founders saw 'standing armies' more there to 'endorse empire' than 'provide for the common defense'--and, as part of the point in each citizen having the right to bear arms, there were to be local mliltias as the first line defense of an invasion before a regular army were formed.....and there are many resources showing that, also, workingman. At any rate, if the purpose was for a 'standing army', why limit the appropriations of Congress to two years?

You can doubt the fact the the U.S. has had a standing army if you like but that does not change the fact that we have had one. The contitental congress approved the army, navy and marine corps in 1775. the congress approved the army, navy and marine corps in 1780's they realized that they needed a well trained army so instead of disbanding the entire army the cut it down to two units stationed at west point.

You just can not grasp the concept that 100 percent of the people that file malpractice do not pay there bill.

If you cant pay there are charities to help it us not nor has it ever been the federal governments authority to provide health care to the poor. Instead of pushing for the government to provide it to everyone why dont you push for them to follow there own rules and stop all welfare as soon as possible.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

You can doubt the fact the the U.S. has had a standing army if you like but that does not change the fact that we have had one.

I'm sorry, was that your answer as to why the U.S. Constitiution put a two year limitation on Congress budgeting for an army? And, not for the navy protecting trade from those Barbary Coast pirates? Is the Congress following that two year limitation requirement now--or just rubber stamping what the military-industrial complex wants for 'our safety'....

Quote workingman:

You just can not grasp the concept that 100 percent of the people that file malpractice do not pay there bill.

Once again, how does that answer the question? You say that medicine is a privileged 'pay up or else' product for everyone (even though, in the real world of American medicine, some still get it at no direct cost to them as others--many helping pay for others to get it at no cost--risk bankruptcy or are, especially if Obamacare takes effect, forced to buy health insurance). Why are those that don't even pay for the product getting to sue for what suffering they claim they had due to it--or even the lack of it? Can you sue in any other purchase they you didn't pay for, or didn't receive due to such lack of payment, workingman?

Using that 'logic' with your own examples, maybe those welfare recipients are working it all the wrong way. They should be suing for all those houses, all those TV's, and all those products that they can't, otherwise, afford because, just like medicine, while it's a product that they can't afford, if they can claim suffering for it, or due to the lack of it (and there's all sorts of suffering to be claimed), their threat to sue may allow them to get it (or, now, at least get paid for the pain and suffering due to the lack of it--so, now, they can go out and buy it, anyway). Right, workingman? It makes about as much sense as you claiming that medicine is a 'pay up or else' product--yet, you still offer the non-payers a right to sue over it--or the lack of it......Again, what shit are you trying to pull here, workingman?

Quote workingman:

If you cant pay there are charities to help it us not nor has it ever been the federal governments authority to provide health care to the poor. Instead of pushing for the government to provide it to everyone why dont you push for them to follow there own rules and stop all welfare as soon as possible.

Well, first off, read above. Maybe those welfare recipients should follow your guide into medicine being a 'pay up or else' product--but still sue for any harm they can claim due to it, or the lack of it, whether they pay up or not. That way, they still have the right to all those houses, TV's, and other products, that they cannot afford.

Secondly, is that how you think education should be approached? Rely on 'charity' to get it? And, how would 'relying on charity' work out in the application of medical care today? Will 'charity' pay for all those expensive new drugs, new procedures and extensive treatments, workingman? To everyone that requests it--or needs it? Again, you are quite quaint and unrealistic in what 'solutions' you offer. Or, let's say that 'charity' pays only for the second-rate cheaper drugs, less than state of the art procedures and treatments, and these poor recipients still suffer for it. Or, maybe 'charity' didn't offer medical care to all those that requested--or needed--it. Will those sufferers still be able to sue accordingly? And, who will they be able to sue, workingman? Again, what kind of shit are you trying to pull off here, workingman?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The two year limitation was put in to keep the military from taking over the country through a violent take over. However they needed well trained troops so they never completely disbanded the army. The navy and marine corps fought the pirates in the barbary coast area to protect shipping. They navy was not limited so that it could protect the coast line and the shipping throught the world. the navy is a sea based orginazation or at least than it was not as much chance of violent overthrow from the navy as a standing army. They did not worry about the industral complex much back than as the troops provided their own weapons.

people do use charities to pay for medical care today. I hear people setting up accounts and collecting donations for medicsl care all the time. If they will only oay for second rate care they would be doing the same thing as the government.

Education should be paid for by those using the service if you cant afford it get charity like the scholarship I donate to, if not tough shit.

Your unrealistic unsastainable universal health care would end in failure just like every where else. Have you ever been outside the u.s.? Some of what they call the best hospital in town I would not take my dog to.

If the charity pays the bill and you sue for malpractice, you get the money bit should oay the charity for its portion of the bill. That way the money will be available fir the next person.

Lets say we have government paid for health care, well they pay for experimental procedures? Will they pay for drug research or will inovation go down as obama's advisor said it would?

I think at this point we should agree to dis agree I do not want the government to be in charge of my health care I know that if they are paying for it they can dictate everything effected by health care or your intire life to include food. Where you do not. You need the government to run your life for you think tgat if they provide everything you will be more free, ir at least free to take what they give you.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

The two year limitation was put in to keep the military from taking over the country through a violent take over.....

So, why wasn't that limitation placed on the navy? Where the very next clause in that section of the Constitution says simply 'To provide and maintain a Navy' without limitations. And, where is that limitation for the army now?

Here's one source's description of how the era of the American founders saw 'armies' and 'militias' differently (from Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Bill of Rights, in Chapter 3 titled 'The Military Amendments'):

......In 1789, the word army--in contradistinction to militia--connoted a mercenary force, as even a casual glance at contemporaneous dictionaries revealed. This was largely why an "army" was feared.....These men, full-time soldiers who had sold themselves into virtual bondage to the government, were typically considered the dregs of society--men without land, homes, families, or principles. Full-time service in the army further weakened their ties to civil(ized/ian) society, and harsh army "discipline" increased their servility to the government.

Small wonder, then, that many traditional republicans opposed standing armies, at least in peacetime. (Perhaps in war, with the very survival of the nation at stake, an army was the lesser of two evils--a nominally American army might be marginally less threatening to domestic liberty than the enemy's army.) Thus, the mainstream republican thought in the late eighteenth century saw a "well regulated Militia" as the best "security of a free State.".....These carefully wrought limitations...were widely seen in 1789 as indispensable bulwarks against any congressional attempt to misuse its power over citizen militiamen.....Seen from every angle, the Constitution's explicit invocation of "the Militia" in clause 16, in contradistinction to its use of "Armies" in clause 12, makes clear that each word is used in its ordinary-language sense: army means enlisted soldiers, and militia means citizen conscripts.

Structure confirms this technical parsing of text. Wretches miserable enough to volunteer as hired guns might deserve whatever treatment that they got at the hands of army officers, but citizens wrenched by conscription from their land, their homes, and their families deserved better....

The founders of this republic didn't like standing armies, workingman. Why are you ignoring that part of history? And, trying to rewrite it like they did like standing armies? And, then:

Quote workingman:

......They did not worry about the industral complex much back than as the troops provided their own weapons.

Trying to pass off the modern military-industrial complex as merely being a method of providing weapons and not, in and of itself, an imposing political force that contradicts the very point against our founders concerns on standing armies--not only contradicts but, as I've said, confirms why our founders had such concerns when the primary political incentive becomes the army, and military concerns, and not the citizens, and domestic concerns....Again, what kind of shit are you trying to pull here, workingman?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

people do use charities to pay for medical care today. I hear people setting up accounts and collecting donations for medicsl care all the time. If they will only oay for second rate care they would be doing the same thing as the government.

Did that really address my point, workingman? Look at it again:

Secondly, is that how you think education should be approached? Rely on 'charity' to get it? And, how would 'relying on charity' work out in the application of medical care today? Will 'charity' pay for all those expensive new drugs, new procedures and extensive treatments, workingman? To everyone that requests it--or needs it? Again, you are quite quaint and unrealistic in what 'solutions' you offer. Or, let's say that 'charity' pays only for the second-rate cheaper drugs, less than state of the art procedures and treatments, and these poor recipients still suffer for it. Or, maybe 'charity' didn't offer medical care to all those that requested--or needed--it. Will those sufferers still be able to sue accordingly? And, who will they be able to sue, workingman? Again, what kind of shit are you trying to pull off here, workingman?

So, do people get to sue if they receive charity as their medical care? And, if so, who do they sue?

Quote workingman:

If the charity pays the bill and you sue for malpractice, you get the money bit should oay the charity for its portion of the bill. That way the money will be available fir the next person.

What the hell does that even mean? Are you suing the charity or not for not getting any treatment available? Who are you trying to fool, workingman? And, really, what kind of shit are you trying to pull off here?

Quote workingman:

Education should be paid for by those using the service if you cant afford it get charity like the scholarship I donate to, if not tough shit.

Well, that's what you say--but, that ain't how it works. It is seen a right. So, now what are you going to do, dipshit? Send the army in to enforce your 'government's will' against such rights once the riots start when your government says 'no one deserves an education'? 'Pay up or else'.....or is your bullshit just that, bullshit......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Your unrealistic unsastainable universal health care would end in failure just like every where else. Have you ever been outside the u.s.? Some of what they call the best hospital in town I would not take my dog to.

How 'unsustainable' is it to have the taxpaying consumer have to pay the government's, the corporation's, and the non-payer's part in the present form of American health care system, workingman? Why is the taxpaying consumer required to pay so many elements of health care payment structures for the same services, workingman? Why are some people getting medical care here at no direct cost to themself as a right as others pay for that and, then, risk bankruptcy for their own care--or, of course, be forced to purchase health insurance? Do you really have any answers to that, workingman? Or, just more of your bullshit?

You forget that my wife is Canadian. None of her relatives would trade their system for ours. They think 'we' offer health care in a ridiculous manner--and I think that they may certainly have a point to consider. One of my wife's friend's brother is a physician in Canada. He doesn't feel like his care has caused harm to anyone--nor have they restricted care to anyone (even if they don't get an MRI 'upon demand' as those in the United States like to claim--everyone does get MRI's, and any other treatment offered, when they need it, however). But, almost by design, and despite all its 'accomodations', our system constantly gets accused of harm in the application of its care--even to those that don't pay. Why is that, workingman? Stinking 'government hospitals' and all. You think the Canadians are too stupid to know any better? Or, are Americans too gullible to know any differently?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Lets say we have government paid for health care, well they pay for experimental procedures? Will they pay for drug research or will inovation go down as obama's advisor said it would?

Corporations do 'research' in a manner that is more profitable for them. Is that 'better research' than what government may offer? Or, let's put it this way, which paying source gives the researcher more freedom to decide its course--corporations, or government? Which one do you think does, workingman? And, why do you think it?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

I think at this point we should agree to dis agree I do not want the government to be in charge of my health care I know that if they are paying for it they can dictate everything effected by health care or your intire life to include food. Where you do not. You need the government to run your life for you think tgat if they provide everything you will be more free, ir at least free to take what they give you.

But, workingman, are you going to leave me here not telling me what you are going to do with those that now get medical care in America as a right while others have to risk bankruptcy for the same options? I know that's what America has now. How do you really rectify your 'pay up or else' posturing with that reality, workingman? Other than by ignoring it, you don't, do you, 'workingman'? So, really, what kind of shit are you trying to pull off here?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

I think at this point we should agree to dis agree I do not want the government to be in charge of my health care I know that if they are paying for it they can dictate everything effected by health care or your intire life to include food. Where you do not. You need the government to run your life for you think tgat if they provide everything you will be more free, ir at least free to take what they give you.

But, workingman, are you going to leave me here not telling me what you are going to do with those that now get medical care in America as a right while others have to risk bankruptcy for the same options? I know that's what America has now. How do you really rectify your 'pay up or else' posturing with that reality, workingman? Other than by ignoring it, you don't, do you, 'workingman'? So, really, what kind of shit are you trying to pull off here?

It is easier and more inline with the constitution to spot paying for all welfare than to try and convience the rest of the population that having the government run their lives us a good thing.

the some that get health care need to be cut off asap.

Your idea of health care for all under the thump of the government is and always well be a bad idea.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

It is easier and more inline with the constitution to spot paying for all welfare than to try and convience the rest of the population that having the government run their lives us a good thing.

I think that actually depends upon what you think government is there for, workingman. I believe you have claimed government's main purpose is to 'supply police and military enforcement', correct? But, then, other than some vague claims on 'written law' (without once describing what is to be done with the written EMTALA law that does endorse 'universal access to medicine), you haven't really spelled out what that 'police and military enforcement' is to support with such government.

I've told you what I believe our government's main purpose is to be--like the tenets to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, securing and endorsing individual rights to all its citizens as individuals. And, I've even told you that that position on government has its basis in the classical and traditional meaning of the term 'liberalism'--which, as SMU Professor Joseph Kobylka states, means the political priority of the individual that can be approached by government in two ways: minimal state, as in laissez faire type, and active state, as in government being actively involved in increasing choices and options to its citizens as being the most practical meaning to individual freedom. I know that I have told you that on at least two occasions. And, as a means to enact active state liberalism, until you get rid of it for everyone to have to be 'employed by the police or military' (or be jailed by them) as the main purpose for government to tax its citizens, that can include what it includes already today, which is education, and include what many see as a similar active state liberalism incentive, which is health care. In both cases, that's not 'government running their lives', that's 'government offering more opportunities from which to choose from (education) and which to choose with (good health)'.....

Quote workingman:

Your idea of health care for all under the thump of the government is and always well be a bad idea.

So, when I ask you this question earlier:

Quote Kerry:

Corporations do 'research' in a manner that is more profitable for them. Is that 'better research' than what government may offer? Or, let's put it this way, which paying source gives the researcher more freedom to decide its course--corporations, or government? Which one do you think does, workingman? And, why do you think it?

What is your answer? And, why do you think it? Same thing can go for a physician paid for by corporations (hell, nowadays, even directed by corporations)--is that 'more freedom of choice' for the physician than what may be offered by government paying for all of it--or 'less freedom of choice'? And, I know for a fact that corporations confine 'freedom of choice for the physician' as much as they legally can--and they are even trying to change the written law to have more control...and, of course, not risk the same medical liability lawsuits as the physicians once had on their own by changing the written law as to how those lawsuits come about...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Canadian 'socialized' medicine.

I have told real life stories about my experience with Canadian medicine here before, workingman--but, maybe (unless you used to exist under a previous name here) you haven't heard them. A decade or so ago, I broke my leg once in Canada ice skating with my new Canadian in-laws and had to go to their ER--and I got exactly the same care that I would have gotten in an American ER for the total price of $125 (and the hospital didn't even stink--in fact, looked a lot like an American hospital)--a service that would have cost me hundreds to thousands of dollars in the United States even at the time (despite me getting a courtesy discount from the doctor in Canada). I did get my leg operated on in the United States in one of the facilities that I worked at by a doctor that I already knew (we were leaving Canada, anyway)--and that cost me $7200 for the operation and one night's stay (also, with me getting a courtesy discount from the doctor here--I didn't have 'health insurance' at the time).

That's one story....

The other story concerns the issue of a Canadian that came to an ER I was working at here on the Texas-Mexican border with what ended up being an acute heart condition that required an operative intervention. After contacting his Canadian foreign health insurance, Canada decided to send a Leer jet down to pick the guy up (on the Texas-Mexican border) to fly the guy back to have his operative intervention be done in Canada. It was cheaper to send a Leer jet air ambulance 2000 miles to pick the guy up and fly him back to Canada than it was to have the guy sent 150 miles to the nearest facility in Texas that could handle his case.

That's my other real life story with Canadian 'socialized' medicine.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, "And, I know for a fact that corporations confine 'freedom of choice for the physician' as much as they legally can--and they are even trying to change the written law to have more control...and, of course, not risk the same medical liability lawsuits as the physicians once had on their own by changing the written law as to how those lawsuits come about..."

Now that is not going to set very well with the ambuance chasing, bottom feeding, scum sucking lawyers!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

Now that is not going to set very well with the ambuance chasing, bottom feeding, scum sucking lawyers!!!

Nor do I bet that such lawyers will own up to their part in creating the corporate take-over of medical care, either....but, as a twist to the old adage (you pays your money and you takes your chances), you takes your money and you makes the outcome (with it)....and they were stupid fools if they didn't see this coming....but, they did do their part in making sure insurance corporations took over....and, thanks to the changes of the written laws in Texas concerning how malpractice lawsuits can be brought up, no lawyer in the state advertises for 'medical malpractice lawsuits' anymore....and, now, lawyers that come after them no longer have such a lucrative opportunity....and the corporatization of medical care will claim 'See, corporatization is doing a better job taking care of you, and the reduction in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed is the proof....'......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Many years ago--probably twenty or so years ago--when medical malpractice lawsuits were in their heyday in Texas, I remember a presentation being done by a lawyer named Weinstein out of Houston that came to our tri-county medical society once with a talk titled 'Malpractice Protection Without Malpractice Insurance'. Now, most of the time, medical society meetings were about as interesting as as describing, or watching, iron rust and most of the busy private practitioners at the time didn't bother with the association--but, in this one particular case, every physician that I knew existed in the area came to this talk (and it wasn't free as usual--this lawyer charged $50 to hear him).

At any rate, the basis of much of his talk revolved around the fact that most lawyers were basically lazy and didn't want to have to go after your personal assets (even though they could)--and will have to have a better case and work harder on it to do so if you don't have medical malpractice insurance. He also pointed out that Texas' Homestead Law is one of the strongest in the nation and nothing but the IRS and child support can come after it even if the physician were to lose the case in a judgment (and that physician lived on the property he owned and it was less than 200 acres)--with the history of the Texas Homestead Law being that many of the pioneers of Texas were running away from eastern banks and didn't want such banks able to follow them into the state to recoup their losses over it. Nor, could any judgment take away anyone's capacity to make a living--so much of the assets of the physician's business were off limits, also. And, of course, as a selling point for his type of law, if a physician made a whole lot of money, he could have trusts to his children and such cover for most of that--but, it would take a lawyer astute in that field of law to arrange it and word it right so it wouldn't look like the physician was setting up those trusts just to hide his assets--and any physician that this may apply to could come see him after the talk (which wasn't me).

So, maybe the song is right, 'Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose'....

However, the whole problem with this lawyer's presentation even as many physicians appreciated his efforts is that every hospital required that physician to obtain medical malpractice insurance--so, unless you were totally apart from any such organization, you had to have malpractice insurance, anyway. And, so it goes. And, even though Texas medical malpractice lawsuits have been reduced to just a very small fraction of their former numbers, that hasn't caused medical malpractice insurance to reduce in costs, accordingly, for private practice. But, now with the new medical litigation adjustments in the law, many organizations do purchase medical malpractice insurance for the physicians they hire at 'reduced group rates'. And, at this point in time, a truly solo and independent private practitioner ('from the cradle to the grave'--like I thought I would be when I started this endeavor) is essentially a thing of the past....but, many don't appear to appreciate what has happened--even as the claim against universal care still includes 'but you won't get to keep your choice of physician'.....with all the HMO's, urgent cares, ER's, hospitalists, etc., where not one of them is all 'your choice of physician' used to mean....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

It is easier and more inline with the constitution to spot paying for all welfare than to try and convience the rest of the population that having the government run their lives us a good thing.

I think that actually depends upon what you think government is there for, workingman. I believe you have claimed government's main purpose is to 'supply police and military enforcement', correct? But, then, other than some vague claims on 'written law' (without once describing what is to be done with the written EMTALA law that does endorse 'universal access to medicine), you haven't really spelled out what that 'police and military enforcement' is to support with such government.

I've told you what I believe our government's main purpose is to be--like the tenets to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, securing and endorsing individual rights to all its citizens as individuals. And, I've even told you that that position on government has its basis in the classical and traditional meaning of the term 'liberalism'--which, as SMU Professor Joseph Kobylka states, means the political priority of the individual that can be approached by government in two ways: minimal state, as in laissez faire type, and active state, as in government being actively involved in increasing choices and options to its citizens as being the most practical meaning to individual freedom. I know that I have told you that on at least two occasions. And, as a means to enact active state liberalism, until you get rid of it for everyone to have to be 'employed by the police or military' (or be jailed by them) as the main purpose for government to tax its citizens, that can include what it includes already today, which is education, and include what many see as a similar active state liberalism incentive, which is health care. In both cases, that's not 'government running their lives', that's 'government offering more opportunities from which to choose from (education) and which to choose with (good health)'.....

Quote workingman:

Your idea of health care for all under the thump of the government is and always well be a bad idea.

So, when I ask you this question earlier:

Quote Kerry:

Corporations do 'research' in a manner that is more profitable for them. Is that 'better research' than what government may offer? Or, let's put it this way, which paying source gives the researcher more freedom to decide its course--corporations, or government? Which one do you think does, workingman? And, why do you think it?

What is your answer? And, why do you think it? Same thing can go for a physician paid for by corporations (hell, nowadays, even directed by corporations)--is that 'more freedom of choice' for the physician than what may be offered by government paying for all of it--or 'less freedom of choice'? And, I know for a fact that corporations confine 'freedom of choice for the physician' as much as they legally can--and they are even trying to change the written law to have more control...and, of course, not risk the same medical liability lawsuits as the physicians once had on their own by changing the written law as to how those lawsuits come about...

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

And, I would say that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I haven't seen a 'curing discovery' (vs. just an 'adjusted treatment') come out of medicine in all the time that I have been in medicine--and even decades before that. Most corporate research expects a profit off of it and, with that in mind, doesn't go after research that may bring in new discoveries and new insights into disease but, rather, research that just tweeks and adjusts those medicines and those treatment programs that already have proven profitably successful just enough to have a new patent on it. The more probing of medical research is still in universities with government grants and government support--but, even then, if they find anything out that could be considered clinically pertinent, it is still corporations that get to profit off of it. Just like what they said about the river, that collusion runs deep.....at the increase expense to the taxpaying consumer....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

And, I would say that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I haven't seen a 'curing discovery' (vs. just an 'adjusted treatment') come out of medicine in all the time that I have been in medicine--and even decades before that. Most corporate research expects a profit off of it and, with that in mind, doesn't go after research that may bring in new discoveries and new insights into disease but, rather, research that just tweeks and adjusts those medicines and those treatment programs that already have proven profitably successful just enough to have a new patent on it. The more probing of medical research is still in universities with government grants and government support--but, even then, if they find anything out that could be considered clinically pertinent, it is still corporations that get to profit off of it. Just like what they said about the river, that collusion runs deep.....at the increase expense to the taxpaying consumer....

With a government grant for say breast cancer research that money can only be used for breast cancer research. If the medicine you come up with does nothing for breast cancer you are not allowed to use that money to try that medicine against as ny other form of cancer. Corporations can and do so the money spent is not wasted.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Another reason we need to own our own drug research and development instead of giving it to profit-seeking privateers. They are not driven by medical goals, they are driven by profits and how to control patents and/or use what they already have in questionable applications. They will fake the research that makes their stuff look good and hide its defects because fiduciary responsibility trumps all other concerns.

We need to have drug research and development be driven by public health priorities and be designed to get medicine to people who need it without breaking their banks. If we are distributing the profits to the owners in the process, we don't have to pay off outside investors or be driven by corporate profit sheets.

We get no value added by allowing private drug companies to run things because they will go for the money rather than what public health requires. They can cure baldness and give you and erection, but don't ask for affordable cancer drugs.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote workingman:

With a government grant for say breast cancer research that money can only be used for breast cancer research.

And, you don't think that corporations put similar restrictions on their money? In fact, as I said, and I agree with what DRC above adds, corporations are likely to put more restrictions on their money--tieing it into just the type of research that doesn't find out anything new--it just adjusts what is known to 'new patents'. Generally, it is government funds that are used for original research--and, if something is found new to be clinically pertinent, oftentimes, the researcher leaves the university to sell him or herself and their product to a corporation (or create a corporation on their own). Do they pay back the government when they do that? No. As I've said, the collusion runs deep--and usually at the increasing cost to the taxpaying consumer.....

CHANGES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION LAW IN TEXAS

You might ask how Texas actually changed the medical malpractice laws in favor of reducing malpractice litigation (I've told that before, also, but maybe you weren't here, workingman). As a lawyer friend of mine explained once, they only had to change two things--and those changes have virtually wiped out the medical malpractice litigation cases in Texas (just in time for corporations to take over with the 'corporatization of medicine').

One, was the definition of negligence. Since most medical malpractice lawsuits are brought under the accusation of negligence, that was a significant point to address. Medical negligence used to mean 'what a physician should have known'. And, when it came to any issue with a compromised outcome, 'what a physician should have known' is essentially limitless (by the way, midlevel practitioners like midwives, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, were expected to know less--and, as such, were even then sued less even if the problem that resulted were the same)--and, when it came to what a 'physician should have known', there were always experts (that's the second part to this) that could be found by malpractice lawyers (hell, expert witnesses advertise in the lawyers' journals) to claim 'If it were me, I would have done this and this and, if that had been done, right now, this patient would be alive, or be in less pain, or wouldn't have had to suffer so long in the hospital, or wouldn't have lost that leg or its use, or wouldn't have a child with cerebral palsy, or whatever'. I've used a classic example of this here: An elderly or diabetic patient feeling weak is found to have a urinary tract infection by their physician that, afterwards, that elderly or diabetic ends up dying of a heart attack later that day. As any 'expert witness' can tell you, that physician should have known that weakness could be the only symptom of a heart attack in an elderly or diabetic. What an expert cannot tell you, however, is when to test that weakness for a heart condition--and weakness in the elderly and diabetics is a very common complaint. When you factor in the point that even chest pain in these people is, after being thoroughly studied, more often not found to be an acute heart condition, you might start realizing just how difficult 'exact medicine' in the real world really is. But, Texas changed the definition of medical negligence from 'what a physician should have known' to 'what a physician did know--and didn't do anything about'. That's a significant change--it is easier for a plaintiff attorney to get an expert to speculate on what someone 'should have known'--it's a lot harder to show what a physician 'did know' at the time.

Or, you might believe the expert who claims 'If I were there.....' Well, expert, COME ON DOWN! And, let's see you how you can do it....instead of how you can passively judge it....hindsight is always better than foresight....

Which gets to the second part to the changes Texas law has done--the definition of an expert. Prior to this change in Texas law, an expert was basically just anybody that claimed that they were an expert--and, if necessary, convinced a jury (of your peers?) of such. Many times, especially in big cases, these experts were basically just hired guns. Usually faculty members in some university (any where in the nation) with little to no clinical experience and that may actually not see patients at all--but, have creditials tied to their name that could impress a jury. However, Texas changed the rules. An 'expert witness' in any malpractice case had to be a physician that practiced in Texas and practiced just like the physician being sued (if it were a family practitioner, the expert was a family practitioner, if it were an Ob/Gyn, the expert had to be an Ob/Gyn, etc.) and had to make at least half his money in that practice--and not as an 'expert witness' in medical malpractice cases. There went all the hired guns from academia that did no direct clinical work. And, there went most of Texas' medical malpractice litigation cases, also.....just in time for corporations to take over the practice.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Admittedly, we've strayed quite a bit from 'the rights of women' here--but, they have another thread on the other forum.....

By the way, Canadian law is also different from American law. In Canada, you can sue just like here--but, you cannot sue for punitive damages ('pain and suffering')--you can only sue for economic loss. Perhaps, you cannot sue in Canada for 'pain and suffering' because that is already automatically treated in their socialized health care system....at no added cost to the patient. With the knowledge that punitive damages in lawsuits in America are usually the most lucrative part of all lawsuits, wonder if everyone wants to go to how the Canadians practice law as well as how they practice medicine.....especially our lawyers, eh? (eh? is a Canadian word--remember, I'm married to a Canadian). If you are a lawyer, I'll tell you what, I'm willing to practice as a doctor in a system like Canada's--are you willing to practice as a lawyer in a system like Canada's?

I've always wondered how one person's 'pain and suffering' could be worth so much more than another's in American courts. Especially since I know there is absolutely no objective way to determine how much pain any one person has.....there isn't an objective 'pain titer' to go by--it is all subjective to the person--and you cannot tell how much, or how little, pain that is, otherwise....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Kerry:

[quote=workingman]

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

And, I would say that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I haven't seen a 'curing discovery' (vs. just an 'adjusted treatment') come out of medicine in all the time that I have been in medicine--and even decades before that. Most corporate research expects a profit off of it and, with that in mind, doesn't go after research that may bring in new discoveries and new insights into disease but, rather, research that just tweeks and adjusts those medicines and those treatment programs that already have proven profitably successful just enough to have a new patent on it. The more probing of medical research is still in universities with government grants and government support--but, even then, if they find anything out that could be considered clinically pertinent, it is still corporations that get to profit off of it. Just like what they said about the river, that collusion runs deep.....at the increase expense to the taxpaying consumer....

With a government grant for say breast cancer research that money can only be used for breast cancer research. If the medicine you come up with does nothing for breast cancer you are not allowed to use that money to try that medicine against as ny other form of cancer. Corporations can and do so the money spent is not wasted.

One sure indicator of narrow intellectual horizons is being unable to think outside of the box...

"Serendipity? We don't need even the possibility of any stinkin' serendipity!"

After all, nothing's interrelated with anything else, and life always moves neatly along from A to B to C to D, etc., doesn't it?

What an idiot!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote workingman:
Quote Kerry:

[quote=workingman]

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

And, I would say that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I haven't seen a 'curing discovery' (vs. just an 'adjusted treatment') come out of medicine in all the time that I have been in medicine--and even decades before that. Most corporate research expects a profit off of it and, with that in mind, doesn't go after research that may bring in new discoveries and new insights into disease but, rather, research that just tweeks and adjusts those medicines and those treatment programs that already have proven profitably successful just enough to have a new patent on it. The more probing of medical research is still in universities with government grants and government support--but, even then, if they find anything out that could be considered clinically pertinent, it is still corporations that get to profit off of it. Just like what they said about the river, that collusion runs deep.....at the increase expense to the taxpaying consumer....

With a government grant for say breast cancer research that money can only be used for breast cancer research. If the medicine you come up with does nothing for breast cancer you are not allowed to use that money to try that medicine against as ny other form of cancer. Corporations can and do so the money spent is not wasted.

One sure indicator of narrow intellectual horizons is being unable to think outside of the box...

"Serendipity? We don't need even the possibility of any stinkin' serendipity!"

After all, nothing's interrelated with anything else, and life always moves neatly along from A to B to C to D, etc., doesn't it?

What an idiot!

Did you mother tell you that before you were allowed to use the pc again.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote workingman:
Quote Kerry:

[quote=workingman]

I would say the corporation they hire the best they can and put less restrictions on how the money is spent.

And, I would say that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I haven't seen a 'curing discovery' (vs. just an 'adjusted treatment') come out of medicine in all the time that I have been in medicine--and even decades before that. Most corporate research expects a profit off of it and, with that in mind, doesn't go after research that may bring in new discoveries and new insights into disease but, rather, research that just tweeks and adjusts those medicines and those treatment programs that already have proven profitably successful just enough to have a new patent on it. The more probing of medical research is still in universities with government grants and government support--but, even then, if they find anything out that could be considered clinically pertinent, it is still corporations that get to profit off of it. Just like what they said about the river, that collusion runs deep.....at the increase expense to the taxpaying consumer....

With a government grant for say breast cancer research that money can only be used for breast cancer research. If the medicine you come up with does nothing for breast cancer you are not allowed to use that money to try that medicine against as ny other form of cancer. Corporations can and do so the money spent is not wasted.

One sure indicator of narrow intellectual horizons is being unable to think outside of the box...

"Serendipity? We don't need even the possibility of any stinkin' serendipity!"

After all, nothing's interrelated with anything else, and life always moves neatly along from A to B to C to D, etc., doesn't it?

What an idiot!

Did you mother tell you that before you were allowed to use the pc again.

UNGOWA!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I've put this concept out here in thomland before but I see health insurance corporations as just a privatized type of socialism. It certainly isn't 'pay as you go'--or the separate purchase of a product as desired. And, it's basis is just as if the organization were a socialized government--income amassed from the many to pay out as it deems necessary and appropriate to the few. IF everyone needed that medical care as much as some do, just like floods are for home owner insurance, the insurance company couldn't afford it--and would opt for government to come in and cover it for them (such as declaring flood areas 'federal disaster regions').

Here's my Oxford Essential Dictionary of Difficult Words' definition of socialism. If you just substituted 'the community as a whole' with 'any organized institution', you may see my point:

socialism...n., a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

With health insurance coporations we aren't talking about individuals being personally responsible for their care as it comes up (as if 'separately buying the product of health care' in a 'free and open market'), are we? When I discussed this with sawdust, sawdust used to argue that health insurance meets the 'free market model' because people 'choose' to buy it--it's not forced on them. One, that's still not the same thing as buying 'the product' of health care separately--and 'health insurance' is NOT the same thing as 'health care'. So, as I saw it, sawdust's 'distinction' isn't that 'distinctive'--health insurance companies amass the income from the many to distribute as it deems necessary and appropriate to the few just like any claim on a socialized government would. And, as far as 'freedom of choice' (to 'purchase health insurance or not'), it always tried to be sort of like workingman's 'pay up or die' form of 'choice' if the consumer could even think that they might eventually face a bankrupting medical condition (that health insurance 'protects you from'--as long as everyone doesn't have that same bankrupting condition at the same time like a flood could be with home owner insurance--'amassing from the many to pay for the few'--and, of course, as long as whatever expensive medical condition you may have doesn't maximize out the health care benefits your 'contract' with the health insurance company carries). Furthermore, if Obamacare passes with that 'individual mandate' to have health insurance or pay a penalty, then, it is forced upon you--and acts essentially just like a tax would be if government did it without the private form of socialism called health insurance......

Or, consider it this way: Since there is no real challenge to the fact that Obama's statistics (even as I've never seen Obama use them in any discussion of the health care issue) in his book, The Audacity of Hope, are absolutely correct, and that 20% of the population take up 80% of the medical budget right now, if those 20% of the population aren't paying for 80% of the medical budget that they use, then, by that fact, it is a de facto form of socialized application of medical care ('amass from the many to pay for the few'), is it not? And, I still don't understand why American medicine likes to do that through two forms of institutional organization which to make the taxpaying consumer responsible to cover--health care insurance corporations and government--other than it is to the advantage of that privatized form of socialism called health care insurance corporations at added expense to the taxpaying consumer.....even to obtain more profits for its 'privatized colluder' as government already covers most of what is paid for those 20% that take up 80% of the medical budget now so that the 'privatized colluder' can make more profits off of 'covering' the rest....again, with the taxpaying consumer paying for all of it.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Rising Tide Only Lifts All Boats When Everyone Has a Boat.

President John F. Kennedy once said about economic development that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy was, of course, right, but he missed something really, really important: A rising tide lifts only lifts all boats when everyone has a boat.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system