Irony score incalculable

[kallend 2,113]

www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story

Plaintiff in suit against medical insurance mandate owes $thousands in unpaid medical bills.

I guess the medical service providers will pick up the tab and raise costs for the rest of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, ironic.

And yes, edical service providers will pick up the tab and raise costs for the rest of us. Thus a surgeon can charge $1163 for a surgery to remove a portion of small bowel and insurance (like TriCare) can pay him $186 for it and, thanks to federal law, he can charge no more for it.

Imagine when all federal laws are controlled this way. That way health care can be called cheaper but cost more at the same time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,113]

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,085]

>The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to
>help control health care costs . . . .

. . . which this couple did. This plaintiff used the GOP plan of "just go to the ER and then don't pay for it." That brought their health control costs down significantly.

[normiss 867]

Here I had thought that was the democratic skydiver plan .....

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to
>help control health care costs . . . .

. . . which this couple did. This plaintiff used the GOP plan of "just go to the ER and then don't pay for it." That brought their health control costs down significantly.

just like a liberal to chop the sentence in half to change the entire meaning of what was said. If I remember correctly, The GOP wanted to do a couple things to reduce the cost of health care that did not have a federal mandate but that was blocked by the real party of no, the dem party.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

If youare in favor of these 2 items, why didn't you support the GOP and call out the dem party when this was all going through congress? Instead all I heard from you was the rep party were idiots and the party of no.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

If youare in favor of these 2 items, why didn't you support the GOP and call out the dem party when this was all going through congress? Instead all I heard from you was the rep party were idiots and the party of no.

Sounds like you are in favor of single issue voters.

On balance, I find the GOP's policies, especially on social issues, to be mostly repugnant, and GOP pols to be, with a few exceptions, a bunch of hypocrites.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

If youare in favor of these 2 items, why didn't you support the GOP and call out the dem party when this was all going through congress? Instead all I heard from you was the rep party were idiots and the party of no.

Sounds like you are in favor of single issue voters.

On balance, I find the GOP's policies, especially on social issues, to be mostly repugnant, and GOP pols to be, with a few exceptions, a bunch of hypocrites.

Another missdirection? If you are in favor of people paying their own bills and tort reform why did you not speak out against the dem's when the health care bill was going through congress?

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

If youare in favor of these 2 items, why didn't you support the GOP and call out the dem party when this was all going through congress? Instead all I heard from you was the rep party were idiots and the party of no.

Sounds like you are in favor of single issue voters.

On balance, I find the GOP's policies, especially on social issues, to be mostly repugnant, and GOP pols to be, with a few exceptions, a bunch of hypocrites.

Another missdirection? If you are in favor of people paying their own bills and tort reform why did you not speak out against the dem's when the health care bill was going through congress?

I would prefer a single payer system. The GOP just favors health freeloaders.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529


In addition to the irony there is also the hypocrisy factor.

Not to mention the absurd cost of unnecessary defensive medicine, courtesy of the legal profession

The rep's wanted tort reform but the party in power that created the health care policy decided it wasn't needed. maybe you need to call Obama and Polosi and recommend some tort reform.

The article you put up does say that the Rep party wanted to do somethingthing to help control health care costs and knew that something had to be done, but they couldn't get past a federal mandate to carry health insurance and that is why it died.

I'm quite in favor of tort reform.

I'm also in favor of holding freeloaders like this "plaintiff" responsible for their own health care costs.

If youare in favor of these 2 items, why didn't you support the GOP and call out the dem party when this was all going through congress? Instead all I heard from you was the rep party were idiots and the party of no.

Sounds like you are in favor of single issue voters.

On balance, I find the GOP's policies, especially on social issues, to be mostly repugnant, and GOP pols to be, with a few exceptions, a bunch of hypocrites.

Another missdirection? If you are in favor of people paying their own bills and tort reform why did you not speak out against the dem's when the health care bill was going through congress?

I would prefer a single payer system. The GOP just favors health freeloaders.

Show me one quote that says that the GOP thinks freeloading is what they want. they just dissagree with a federal mandate. I most agree with them, especially those that work hard. A federal mandate does not make people pay for insurance, only that they have insurance. The only ones paying are those that work hard and try to make their own way through life without sucking on the government teet.

[billvon 3,085]

>The GOP wanted to do a couple things to reduce the cost of health care that did not
>have a federal mandate but that was blocked by the real party of no, the dem party.

The republicans bitched and complained and did nothing. The democrats actually did something and passed a law to reduce the cost of healthcare. Now the republicans are bitching and complaining about the law.

I sense a trend.

[billvon 3,085]

>Show me one quote that says that the GOP thinks freeloading is what they want.

Tommy Thompson: "Even if you don’t have health insurance, you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage."

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Show me one quote that says that the GOP thinks freeloading is what they want.

Tommy Thompson: "Even if you don’t have health insurance, you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage."

That doesn't mean that you get a freebie, just that you won't dye because you are broke.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>The GOP wanted to do a couple things to reduce the cost of health care that did not
>have a federal mandate but that was blocked by the real party of no, the dem party.

The republicans bitched and complained and did nothing. The democrats actually did something and passed a law to reduce the cost of healthcare. Now the republicans are bitching and complaining about the law.

I sense a trend.

yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up. my shops insurance coverage has been reduced causing more out of pocket costs and insurance went up $4000 last year alone. ($1000 per person a year) yep I deffinately see a tend.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

>The GOP wanted to do a couple things to reduce the cost of health care that did not
>have a federal mandate but that was blocked by the real party of no, the dem party.

The republicans bitched and complained and did nothing. The democrats actually did something and passed a law to reduce the cost of healthcare. Now the republicans are bitching and complaining about the law.

I sense a trend.

yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up. my shops insurance coverage has been reduced causing more out of pocket costs and insurance went up $4000 last year alone. ($1000 per person a year) yep I deffinately see a tend.

Well, things will get better for you when the freeloaders like the plaintiff in this case have to pay their own insurance rather than sticking their medical bills to you and your employees.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,085]

>That doesn't mean that you get a freebie . . . .

As this family just demonstrated, often that is exactly what it means.

>just that you won't dye because you are broke.

Yep. And that's a good thing. But that money has to come from somewhere. Pretending that it appears by magic is how we got into this problem. Republicans push for plans that result in what happened to this woman; clearly we need a better approach.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The GOP wanted to do a couple things to reduce the cost of health care that did not
>have a federal mandate but that was blocked by the real party of no, the dem party.

The republicans bitched and complained and did nothing. The democrats actually did something and passed a law to reduce the cost of healthcare. Now the republicans are bitching and complaining about the law.

I sense a trend.

yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up. my shops insurance coverage has been reduced causing more out of pocket costs and insurance went up $4000 last year alone. ($1000 per person a year) yep I deffinately see a tend.

Well, things will get better for you when the freeloaders like the plaintiff in this case have to pay their own insurance rather than sticking their medical bills to you and your employees.

So you would be OK with the government requiring people to get insurance on their own and if they don't garnishing their wages and forcing them to buy into a government plan? That would allow those of us who are capable of taking care of ourselves to continue on our own privately selected plans. Many States have a similar plan for automobile insurance.

[billvon 3,085]

>yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up.

Hmm. Given that most of the bill's provisions have not gone into effect yet - what do you think has caused that?

[DanG 1]

Quote

So you would be OK with the government requiring people to get insurance on their own and if they don't garnishing their wages and forcing them to buy into a government plan?

That's, in a nutshell, what "Obamacare" does.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up.

Hmm. Given that most of the bill's provisions have not gone into effect yet - what do you think has caused that?

the parts that went into effect, like no turning down anyone, no lifetime limits, and children on policy until 26. what many don't understand is that most of the big things are already in effect.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

>yep that the dem's fucked us, the bill did nothing to reduce costs, my costs went up.

Hmm. Given that most of the bill's provisions have not gone into effect yet - what do you think has caused that?

My guess would be a profit driven healthcare system. All of those who are for a non-regulated free market should not complain when the price of services go up. If rising cost is a concern, then stand up for regulations.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>That doesn't mean that you get a freebie . . . .

As this family just demonstrated, often that is exactly what it means.

>just that you won't dye because you are broke.

Yep. And that's a good thing. But that money has to come from somewhere. Pretending that it appears by magic is how we got into this problem. Republicans push for plans that result in what happened to this woman; clearly we need a better approach.

yes we do, make health care cheaper to provide and make people responsible for the bill. garnish wages to pay for the bill. work to bring down insurance premiums instead of making them higher so more can afford insurance so they don't hae this happen to them.