Hardware

General discussion

Locked

President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

By jdclyde ·
President Obama over the last few days has stated how urgent they quickly move forward his agenda of a government run health before the chance can slip away, not to return for generations. His words, paraphrased of course.

My question for supporters of Obama has two parts.

One, if his plan is sound, why would something that complicated be done in such a rush?

Two, if his plan is sound, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?

Or is he rushing things through so people don't have a chance to see what is really in the plan, like he did with his non-stimulating stimulus package?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Not under all conditions.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I really don't know

"This legislation FORCES more people to buy their products!"

Depends on which legislation you've seen. I've seen some that sets up a government-run option, and Big Medical doesn't want that. I don't think there's any chance that a 'gov't only, single payer' solution will emerge, but if Uncle Sugar is providing coverage for a large minority then his ability to negotiate prices goes up.

Collapse -

Will do the same it did for home owner coverage in Florida

by jdclyde In reply to Not under all conditions.

Ask JCK how much it would be for private hurricane insurance, and what impact government had in it.

Collapse -

Negotiate?

by TonytheTiger In reply to Not under all conditions.

No, they'll simply TELL them. Oh, and they'll tell you too.

Collapse -

Be fair

by Oz_Media In reply to Political expediency

That would mean JD would have to have the attention span and patience to read more than one sentence before contriving his attack.

Collapse -

Every Bill seemingly has to be rushed through.

by OnTheRopes In reply to President Obama says chan ...

I doubt that any of our legislators can read the full content of any Bill.<br>
I'm all for healthcare reform. I don't know where to start. I can guarantee you that I personally don't want to see caps on the amount I could collect if some doctor screwed up and permanently hurt or killed my wife. That cap on lawsuits is out for me.<br>
Hasn't healthcare reform been sort of on the agenda for the past 30 years? Seems to me that in that period of time there were probably some good attempts to pass decent legislation. Sure, times have changed but it seems as if President Obama could empanel a large group of experts from all affected areas and have them develop a long term, cohesive plan instead of creating a slap-dash plan that is likely to cost more than it should.<br>
From my perspective, the poor and people living on fixed incomes are going to be hurt with any more out of pocket expense. Some more than others. I know that I'm not going be thrilled to <i>have</i> to pay hundreds/month for insurance.<br>
I don't want to hear about tort reform being the solution to all of our problems. As I said, I'll sue like a madman if someone hurts or kills the one I love. It's going to take more than a few hundred thousand to placate ME! What if she required in-home or nursing home care for the rest of her life? She's young yet. Should a doctor's screw up cause us/me to go broke taking care of her? What if our house required serious modification for her to get around. Same question as before. <br>
Speaking of tort reform, as I understand it, speaks in favor of the medical profession and not in favor of those it serves. If I'm not mistaken medical errors kill more people each year than guns do. Outlaw doctors and nurses!

Collapse -

The issue of tort

by jdclyde In reply to Every Bill seemingly has ...

there are a lot of cases that are just BS, with junk science winning based upon an emotional case, rather than an actual case or mistake made.

In the US, we have so many scumbags that are only looking to strike it rich by suing someone, which is NOT the same thing you are referring to.

It is total BS that people can sue "big tobacco" without turning around and suing the ATF who oversees the legal sale of such. No one in North America is unaware of the dangers of smoking, yet they smoke anyways.

Collapse -

In this instance I'll just take your word for much of what you say.

by OnTheRopes In reply to The issue of tort

To be honest about it, I just don't care enough to look it up.<br>
I only know of two malpractice cases personally. Both were settled for millions of dollars. In one case, my landlord's wife went in for a 'simple' operation and the anesthesiologist screwed up somehow leaving his wife pretty much a vegetable. <br>
The other case was one where one of my worker's son went in for a simple tonsillectomy and was accidentally killed.<br>
Neither case was an emotional affair as there was clear evidence that the doctors screwed up. For Daryl's son the doctors were actually arguing in court over who was more to blame. <br>
I totally agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph. Never thought of it myself. I'd love to see someone sue 'em. That'd make my day.

Collapse -

That is the point

by jdclyde In reply to In this instance I'll jus ...

separate the valid cases as you pointed out from the fraud and frivolous.

Collapse -

The bogus cases

by TonytheTiger In reply to In this instance I'll jus ...

are where they know something now that they didn't know then but are suing knowing they can't win but also knowing that it'll be cheaper for the company to settle than to fight.

Collapse -

I don't have a problem with tort reform.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The issue of tort

I don't have a problem with someone suing for malpractice to recover costs of the initial treatment, or for costs to correct the initial errors.

I also don't have a problem with a cap on 'pain and suffering' or punitive damages, or a cap on damages when the malpractice results in death. These are where the real dollar damage is being done. I don't have problem with malpractice lawyers being limited to a maximum fee instead of a percentage, which I perceive encourages them to drive up the P&S damages.

Related Discussions

Related Forums