Palin, have a tort, Obama

[Emma]

Indeed, you are a rare commodity. It's quite difficult to find humor on your chosen side of the fence these days, what, with justifying the ridiculous and all . Perhaps, you should consider throwing away that freshly printed non-protest sign and go for the protesting homemade. After all, according to your fellow Democrats (shall we say lemmings), Republicans are by far most evil and you certainly wouldn't want to be 1/2 assed evil, besides, we are having more fun!

lol

Do you have cookies


I'm not a Dem, btw

 

[Emma]

And, of course, despite the focus on it, malpractice insurance and settlements represent a very small portion of health care costs. I believe the figure was under 2%. Of course, originally the malpractice insurance rates ballooned up without malpractice suits having increased significantly, and continued going up even when malpractice expenses leveled or went down. Because those rates were initially raised to cover failed investments made by the insurers. But that was a study conducted years later, and doesn't sound nearly as interesting.

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Indeed, you are a rare commodity. It's quite difficult to find humor on your chosen side of the fence these days, what, with justifying the ridiculous and all . Perhaps, you should consider throwing away that freshly printed non-protest sign and go for the protesting homemade. After all, according to your fellow Democrats (shall we say lemmings), Republicans are by far most evil and you certainly wouldn't want to be 1/2 assed evil, besides, we are having more fun!

lol

Do you have cookies


I'm not a Dem, btw

Are you toying with me ? Evil leftist liberal, wants cookies from rather strange men, has a sense of humor, has a tough time in a stiff breeze, supports the troops, Hooa!!!
I'm officially boggled, yet I am after all a lowly upstart rep 1, unfamiliar with the Great Emma-nator.

 

[veritas]

And, of course, despite the focus on it, malpractice insurance and settlements represent a very small portion of health care costs. I believe the figure was under 2%. Of course, originally the malpractice insurance rates ballooned up without malpractice suits having increased significantly, and continued going up even when malpractice expenses leveled or went down. Because those rates were initially raised to cover failed investments made by the insurers. But that was a study conducted years later, and doesn't sound nearly as interesting.

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

 

[DiveCon]

And, of course, despite the focus on it, malpractice insurance and settlements represent a very small portion of health care costs. I believe the figure was under 2%. Of course, originally the malpractice insurance rates ballooned up without malpractice suits having increased significantly, and continued going up even when malpractice expenses leveled or went down. Because those rates were initially raised to cover failed investments made by the insurers. But that was a study conducted years later, and doesn't sound nearly as interesting.

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

no, but it does need reform, not what Obama is proposing

also remove the state lines in health insurance and allow the companies to offer al carte packages

 

[Emma]

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

no, but it does need reform, not what Obama is proposing

also remove the state lines in health insurance and allow the companies to offer al carte packages

Now you've gone and made me hungry.

Drug companies should be next. Did you see my link I posted in the thread last night?

 

[Gudrid]

And, of course, despite the focus on it, malpractice insurance and settlements represent a very small portion of health care costs. I believe the figure was under 2%. Of course, originally the malpractice insurance rates ballooned up without malpractice suits having increased significantly, and continued going up even when malpractice expenses leveled or went down. Because those rates were initially raised to cover failed investments made by the insurers. But that was a study conducted years later, and doesn't sound nearly as interesting.

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

 

[DiveCon]

Indubitably.

no, but it does need reform, not what Obama is proposing

also remove the state lines in health insurance and allow the companies to offer al carte packages

Now you've gone and made me hungry.

Drug companies should be next. Did you see my link I posted in the thread last night?

i've already siad what needs to be done to fix the drug companies


stop allowing them to over charge Americans to give cut rate prices to citizens of other countries
if a detrol pill costs $10 here, it should cost $10 everywhere
(no, i dont know how much detrol costs, thats just an example)

 

[Gudrid]

The drug companies claim that it's because of all of our regulations. Apparently all those "socialist" nations have a more hands-off government when it comers to pharmaceuticals. It's amazing the contradictions that people will swallow sometimes.

 

[DiveCon]

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

i would
they dont need to be dismantled, they need to be reformed
and allowed to actually compete
right now you have 50 state commissions telling them what they MUST offer for coverage in the different states
and in SOME cases people might not WANT that coverage
why would a couple in their fifties need coverage for pregnancy?
or single people

 

[DiveCon]

The drug companies claim that it's because of all of our regulations. Apparently all those "socialist" nations have a more hands-off government when it comers to pharmaceuticals. It's amazing the contradictions that people will swallow sometimes.

of course, they depend on our FDA to say if it passes of not in most cases
lol
i sure as hell wouldnt want our country to depend on their country for that
but i do think there are ways to streamline the process while still protecting the public

 

[Gudrid]

Indubitably.

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

i would
they dont need to be dismantled, they need to be reformed
and allowed to actually compete
right now you have 50 state commissions telling them what they MUST offer for coverage in the different states
and in SOME cases people might not WANT that coverage
why would a couple in their fifties need coverage for pregnancy?
or single people

Single people get pregnant, and pregnancy coverage was optional for married couples when I looked at private insurance (that was 8 or so years ago, though). Good luck finding an affordable private plan that covers pregnancy if you're a single woman, however.

 

[edthecynic]

As much as the NeoMarxists NeoNazis LOATHED and despised Reagan, not even Reagan faced the hatred from the Left that Palin is subject to. When Reagan lost in 76 they left him alone in CA but then he went on to win it all and become the best President of the 20th Century.

The NeoMarxists NeoNazis (hmm NeoMarxnazis NeoMarxzys) wanted to DESTROY Palin, wipe her off the political map at all costs, go after her, her family, her kids and it blew up in their faces

Wahhh TOO FUCKING BAD LIBTARDOS!

YOU BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELVES

Yeah, play that PERPETUAL Victim Card again.
You CON$ never seem to tire of playing the poor little innocent victims of just about everybody.
Everybody picks on you because you are sooooo polite and friendly.

And as VICTIMS you can rationalize any revenge is justified because you are in The Right!

 

[DiveCon]

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

i would
they dont need to be dismantled, they need to be reformed
and allowed to actually compete
right now you have 50 state commissions telling them what they MUST offer for coverage in the different states
and in SOME cases people might not WANT that coverage
why would a couple in their fifties need coverage for pregnancy?
or single people

Single people get pregnant, and pregnancy coverage was optional for married couples when I looked at private insurance (that was 8 or so years ago, though). Good luck finding an affordable private plan that covers pregnancy if you're a single woman, however.

single men cant, at least not yet
LOL

 

[veritas]

Insurance almost dismantled itself, and it would have crashed without the bailout for AIG and those other financial institutions. AIG was so heavily intertwined in every business venture and reinsurer and loans and transfers the whole deal stood to collapse. Maybe it should have. We could have taken that trillion and front end loaded universal healthcare. The investment industry in non-tangible assets failed. It engaged in issuing insurance on risky instruments that wasn't regulated to the tune of 60T [low estimate] all over the world.

I say it needs to be deprived of the health care delivery sector as a means of capital and also prohibited from engaging in what amounts to a monstrous check kiting /gambling scheme. It doesn't produce anything but litigation and wait times.

 

[Emma]

Insurance carriers. Figures.

Perhaps we should be dismantling the insurance industry.

Indubitably.

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

'Course not. Pharma and Insurance are spending hundreds of millions to lobby congress.

So.


Change the law so that elected officials cannot receive money or any gift in any form from anyone. Individuals or groups can lobby them to their hearts content. They just can't give them a damned thing but their opinion.

Candidates are limited to contributions from individual citizens ONLY, and cap it at $3000 per candidate per campaign.

 

[DiveCon]

Insurance almost dismantled itself, and it would have crashed without the bailout for AIG and those other financial institutions. AIG was so heavily intertwined in every business venture and reinsurer and loans and transfers the whole deal stood to collapse. Maybe it should have. We could have taken that trillion and front end loaded universal healthcare. The investment industry in non-tangible assets failed. It engaged in issuing insurance on risky instruments that wasn't regulated to the tune of 60T [low estimate] all over the world.

I say it needs to be deprived of the health care delivery sector as a means of capital and also prohibited from engaging in what amounts to a monstrous check kiting /gambling scheme. It doesn't produce anything but litigation and wait times.

of course it SHOULD have
the government set an exptremely bad precident bailing out private companies
and most conservatives i know where pissed off that it was being done

 

[DiveCon]

Indubitably.

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

'Course not. Pharma and Insurance are spending hundreds of millions to lobby congress.

So.


Change the law so that elected officials cannot receive money or any gift in any form from anyone. Individuals or groups can lobby them to their hearts content. They just can't give them a damned thing but their opinion.

Candidates are limited to contributions from individual citizens ONLY, and cap it at $3000 per candidate per campaign.

now your talking about election reform

i've been asking for this for YEARS
lets go back to having state governors appoint senators and give advise and consent to the state legislatures the way it used to be
then lets expand the house so one member doesnt have to represent so many people
i would say we should add about 150 to 200 to the house and have the diustricts redrawn to match by population, with the stipulation that districts follow geographic lines as opposed to who (ethinicity, political party not counted) lives there


hows that sound for a start?

 

[Emma]

no, but it does need reform, not what Obama is proposing

also remove the state lines in health insurance and allow the companies to offer al carte packages

Now you've gone and made me hungry.

Drug companies should be next. Did you see my link I posted in the thread last night?

i've already siad what needs to be done to fix the drug companies


stop allowing them to over charge Americans to give cut rate prices to citizens of other countries
if a detrol pill costs $10 here, it should cost $10 everywhere
(no, i dont know how much detrol costs, thats just an example)

Yes, and then there is this:

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1398928-post2.html

 

[Emma]

I wouldn't argue with that plan, but it would never get passed.

'Course not. Pharma and Insurance are spending hundreds of millions to lobby congress.

So.


Change the law so that elected officials cannot receive money or any gift in any form from anyone. Individuals or groups can lobby them to their hearts content. They just can't give them a damned thing but their opinion.

Candidates are limited to contributions from individual citizens ONLY, and cap it at $3000 per candidate per campaign.

now your talking about election reform

i've been asking for this for YEARS
lets go back to having state governors appoint senators and give advise and consent to the state legislatures the way it used to be
then lets expand the house so one member doesnt have to represent so many people
i would say we should add about 150 to 200 to the house and have the diustricts redrawn to match by population, with the stipulation that districts follow geographic lines as opposed to who (ethinicity, political party not counted) lives there


hows that sound for a start?

A change in how Senators are elected would require an amendment; that's not going to happen. I'd rather keep them as directly elected; they're removed enough from the people they represent. I don't want to add to that.