It was not overlooked by the lawyer, it was another issue, like I said it was my fault. Now that I have dove into this free market POS healthcare system of ours, I can tell you it's broke beyond repair
Some do not pay their bills They are not taking care of their children, why so many over weight disease are on the increase for youths. They are not going to the doctor's because they do not have insurance. Letting conditions run to long before they can be caught sooner. I will be the first to admit I thought the healthcare system was great, my mother ran the local doctor's office, I never paid a dime. I had my head in the dirt, he's gone and practice was sold to hospital.
It's not so much the tax breaks (IMO). It's the discounted insurance rates, based on numbers. If you do away with employer-sponsored insurance coverage......and you're an employee....don't you expect a raise? Also...what would you suggest to make up for the rate hike, once the group rates are null and voided? Co-ops? Just curious. Can I buy collision insurance, after I have a wreck?
There is the rub. Why should the insurance company have to insure someone that has cancer( or any other serious condition)?
I guess you have to be put in that sitution, in all honesty if I was insurance company I would not insure them. Is it fair to a person who had insurace got cancer, lost their insurance, and not cannot get it again? How do we handle these people?
Gary, first of all I feel for you and your situation. My wife spends a lot of her free time helping take care of her Grandma who has Alzheimers, currently she is in the Hospital with Aspiration Pneumonia and we are not sure she will make it much longer. I spent four hours in the hospital with her yesterday and luckily my wife knows Ukranian because Grandma no longer remembers English. The father in law takes care of her full time because it would cost thousands a month to put her in a facility to care for her and Medicaid isn't gonna foot the bill. Here is what scares the hell out of me. There is a mandate that says you must buy it, and if you can't afford it the government will have the IRS determine that claim. Based on the disease we both see firsthand, do you really think you can afford the monthly premiums she will be mandated to pay for her existing condition? Will the government come after direct family to pay the premiums? This is a nearly 3000 page bill that nobody read before voting. Pelosi told us we could see what was in it after they voted on it! The bill is a monstrosity and it is not Constitutional, yet the government forced it on us and we must pay. Yes Healthcare is a mess and already hard to afford, but shouldn't I have a choice on whether I buy it or not? This bill is Socialistic in the fact that it mandates all must have it and it doesn't do much to promote free market. Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. By many accounts it will reduce the money people in the health industry make while doing nothing to curb lawsuits (Tort Reform. We are looking at a situation where there will be a shortage of Doctors in the near future and an environment that creates an environment with little financial reward. In the end the Government will decide what you can afford and will ensure you make the sacrifices needed to afford it if it is within your means by their account.
I thought he was shown much respect.Oreilly is tough but fair,atleast Oreilly had enough respect for the situation to wear a tie.
Raceway I agree, in all honesty if I was not in this situation I would have your view. After diving into our current system it is broke beyond repair. Tort reform was something I supported until my fil last 45 days in the hospital. It has been a tough year, he had his bladder removed and the hospital screwed up. Two emergency surgery's later and over a million in bills leaves a person shaking his head. The man has been in the hospital for over 45 days and counting. They have insurance but I am not sure they will after this ordeal. I have no idea what the answers are, but we have to get off this road. To stay on topic Bill O acting like a dork is not going to solve them.
Gary, Sorry to hear about the issues for your FIL, but how does that change your thoughts on Tort Reform??? Many lawsuits that go to court are frivolous, and get enough sorrow in a jury, and you can land millions, even if everything that was done was RIGHT. Tort Reform isn't necessarily that you can't sue, but that you can't sue for $50 million. I agree that some lawsuits are NECESSARY, yet there are a great many that are UNNECESSARY, and a great many where the $$$$ is out of hand. I've seen MORE than my fair share of medical malpractice/negligence, TRUST me, and I'd fully support some of the Dr.'s AND Nurses I've worked with being sued under some circumstances, but to sue someone for $50 million because a person who really needed both legs amputated got the wrong one amputated on Friday??? Not sure I can give a nod to that one. And because of all the lawsuit happy people out there, so much "defensive" medicine is practiced that we probably spend 20% of the money spent on healthcare trying to prevent lawsuits by running "X," "Y", and "Z" tests just to PROVE that a condition wasn't our fault. From the inside looking out, it's UGLY what we are more or less forced to do sometimes. Old adage taught to many doctors in Med School..... "Dead men don't sue but widows often do......."
The tort reform I have read wants to limit on the payout. My question is who decides the amount? I am for loser pays the cost of the trial. On the payout who would set the limit?
I'm for some forms of tort reform.....but, not this. Even I see the downfalls of this....and I'm all for personal responsibility.
There lies the one of the problems, every solution comes with a price we are not willing to pay. This is where I wish the O'riley's of the world would do there job and stop trying to get ratings, and have a news show on what the real issues are, what are the pluses and the minus. What we get is bickering between the two sides on how right they are.
I'm hoping you're not implying the interview in question is an example of "bickering". It was about as "softball" as you're EVER gonna see Bill. I thought he was pleasant, really.
