Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #241
Dude, do you think that anyone is going to take you serious with this kind of stuff?
Obama thinks we're all stupid. Some of you really are.
- Thread starter daveman
- Start date
Dude, do you think that anyone is going to take you serious with this kind of stuff?
Well, what that guy said is classified as fraudulent statements.
Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
Because of his obvious act of fraud you and I will be paying much more for insurance, and you and I will have less options on who will be able to treat us, which hospitals we choose to be treated in, which doctors we choose to give us that treatment.
You cannot tell me that just because he has been caught committing fraud red-handed he won't do it again or he won't bullshit you about everything else. The point of this all is, how can a society survive when the guy on the top cannot be trusted?
Unfortunately you're a liberal. You assume that everyone is dishonest.
Either that or it compounds the damage being done by those that exploit and cheat the current system. What exactly does the ACA reward?
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
fraud legal definition of fraud. fraud synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
You only think that because a bunch of Beltway scam-artists (Democrats) told you the ACA was better than the current system.
Fact is, Congress has been screwing with the system for years forcing out doctors with their ridiculous regulations. They have been setting this up since Bush was first elected. They tried springing Hillary care on us and we didn't buy it, so they intentionally started making it harder for medical providers to operate in the U.S. giving us the impression that health care was out of control.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Not really.
It really is out of control, mostly because there's a lot of money to be made.
We spend twice what other industrialized countries do per capita, and we get the world's worst results.
We have the lowest life expectency in the industrialized world, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, and 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis.
Our system is broken.
The ACA fixes some problems. It also creates some problems.
What has the ACA fixed?
Enlighten me.
And don't give me that bs about pre-existing conditions. Taking into account almost 2 million healthy individuals just got their insurance cancelled, and millions more are on the way, that just doesn't hold water.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Insurance companies have to spend 80% of their budgets on treatments.
Pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded.
Family planning services can no longer be excluded.
Cancelling a policy that was inadeqate is like grounding an airplane that is not airworthy.... it's generally considered a good thing.
So, in this case, big government is OK to decide what is 'adequate' when the end user already had 'adequate' coverage which met their individual needs?
-Geaux
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #250
A rather broad-based question ... like asking me to explain why republicans or demacrats are wrong - I don't have all day to explain.
I have explained already about the 50 billion a year we taxpayers shell out to bail out the hospitals (thought most conservatives hated bail-outs?)
That's just a start.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Um, yeah...
Just like the government can tell you that your car with the shot brakes and the black smoke pouring out the back of it is unsafe even if you think it's "Adequate".
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #253
All people had adiquate coverage? Me thinks only a select few.
A capped high deductible policy is hardly a saftey net that would prevent Uncle Sam from having to pick up the tab in the event of an enourmous calamity.
It was adequate within their fiscal means.
Who said the government has to pick up the tab?
-Geaux
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
OK. Lets have some fun.
What part of what I said made you question whether or not I had visited Healthcare.gov?
Further, what was I trying to say in that post? Have you a guess?
Please, have a change of heart and become a nutter. You are an embarrassment.
Last edited:
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
your opinion of his coverage means - poop. I didn't see him complain, if he had a plan he was content with, what do you care? who the F do you think you are?
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
Lone Laugher?
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
I have asked for the questioner to give some thought to the possible answers first. I am tired of giving out free lessons here. Lets see if the questioner has any idea why I might have said something like that first. There are a ton of reasons why we should all foot the bill for shit like maternity care. Big picture stuff.
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
New Topics
-
-
Russia's Potato Dilemma Risks Causing a Health Crisis- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
-
Every clip I hear from Fox News they bring up "is the market going to panic today (over tariffs)"? Honestly, who gives a flying F if they do?- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
Do you know what Reagan did when he saw the Bolshevik empire's war in Afghanistan?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
Latest Discussions
-
-
Sanders warns of authoritarianism after Trump deploys national guard to LA
- Latest: Mack The Finger
-
-
