The Glade 4.0

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

To be clear, my comment about me debating was me debating with myself on whether to try and seriously respond to your posts past the initial response to me.

You might consider how a different tone and approach might have changed my responses.

I've tried that different tone for a decade without success ...

Montegue continues to insult anyone who disagrees with him. TheRiov cries foul and runs to the mod as soon as he thinks something is combative. And you just snipe from the peanut gallery. The thing you all have in common is this haughty, holier than thou presence.

So, I think I'll stick with my original posts, as I really have no patience for the behavior you guys display. I get you all think I'm some condescending *******. It's cool. I also get that three of you would rather take umbrage instead of asking for clarification or asking me to rephrase something when I fail to communicate something as intended. But don't any of you ever deign to consider yourselves morally superior to every one else on this forum just because of your politics again ...

_________________

Holy crap.

Sui! You need a new watch I'll take your old stainless one!

_________________

I know it is a lost cause and going down as the first locked thread in new "no rules" hellfire but staying on topic.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/region ... position=0

Gentlemen in question makes too much qualify for state assistance but not enough to pay for a plan and is suing over his fines. Hopefully the case will end up well.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Wait, why are Khross's postings such cause for shock when the same style of thing from other posters isn't?

_________________

Dammit, stop asking rational questions and reminding me that my knowledge is limited to a few select fields.

_________________

Pass the popcorn.

_________________

Honestly Khross was one of the last ones I expected to gain a rage point here, myself being dead last, but just goes to show how much I know.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I don't get where "public health care means you have a right to medical care" comes from. Public health care doesn't automatically mean you have a right to medical care, it means you have a right to a certain amount of dollars that can be spent on health care. A doctor doesn't have to take the money and treat you if they don't want to, even under public health care. Right now you have a right to emergency care, because the doctor is forced to actually help you in that situation, but public health care doesn't automatically create a right for you to receive care at all.

I'm not sure myself. I really wish I knew, because the conflation between "public", "universal access", and "rights" is problematic both philosophically and practically.I'm not sure this is honestly much better. If there is a "right" funding for that purpose, then you effectively legitimate the already existing government intrusion into the market as both price and procedure fixing entity. Wouldn't increasing the viability and availability of access be a better option?

_________________

Define "gain a rage point". That sounds like something I may be interested in... unless it's a game thing and I don't think this counts.

Also, as much rage as you may feel he expressed, if you have kids or even plan to, your outrage should gain points too (I guess that's the "point"?)

We are SO **** our kids over.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I believe the way the laws are currently written, unless the doctor only accepts what amounts to cash at the time of service (check, CC, etc), they must accept all forms of other... ie If the doctor accepts insurance from X company, they must also accept Medicare/Caid. I could be wrong on that, but I think I recall properly what DKF and/or SQ wrote.

Xeq, combine the "right" to free emergency care with a highly legalistic society, and you have the recepie for major financial troubles.

The Dr's want to avoid being sued, so additional, and extra tests are ordered, people who should be sent home are kept in.

Worse, from a financial stand point, is the very terminal with no insurance, and no power of attorney, or unreasonable family. 5 years ago in my hospital we had a woman (89 years old) visiting from Trinidad on vacation, stroked, ended up in the ER, from there to the ICU, several MI's a second stroke, and she ended up trach'ed pegged, and no where to go. She was not a US Citizen, no insurance, and we could not legally turn her out. To make a long story short, 5 months latter a miracle deal was made and she was sent back to a Trinidad hospital where she died that week. My hospital got to eat a 3 million dollar loss, for all the procedures, months of ICU care, Dr's fee's. To save our budget we closed maternity...

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

As far as I know you can still accept private insurance but not take Medicare. Some insurance companies won't contract with you if you don't take Medicare, but it's not a law.

Unfortunately, you would have to amend the Constitution to fix the litigation problem. It's inherent when you use a jury of 12 everymen to decide matters of fact. Especially when it comes to medical malpractice, where there is rarely proof malpractice did or did not occur, it just comes down to probability. The fact is a jury of people making on average $30,000 per year is not going to side with a person making $250,000+ per year against someone making $30k/year who is suffering from a debilitating medical problem unless there is no doubt at all. I have a friend who was on a jury in a malpractice case and she told me flat out that they ended up awarding the plaintiff money even though they though his case was bullshit because they felt sorry for him.

Didn't DFK say that indigent care only counts for 3-4 percent of medical costs, anyway?

You should shoot your friend Xeq.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You go first.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Khross did not "gain a rage point" there... he used a rage point to automatically shift to Crinos, with no Veil to hide it, and then ate some face. It may have cost him some Gnosis though.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I don't have friends that are that evil.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

For clarification, Taskiss,

Crinos is the one in the middle.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Malpractice cases are not like other civil cases. In civil cases the jury often has to decide whether the harm the plaintiff is claiming actually exists at all. If the plaintiff is really trying to screw the defendant the harm can be imaginary, or come as a result of the plaintiff's own actions or bad choices, so a jury will have no problem ruling against them.

In malpractice cases this never happens. The plaintiff's medical condition and associated suffering will be well documented. And obviously, he didn't deliberately give himself brain damage or a major nerve injury or whatever. The jury mainly has to decide whether it's the doctor's fault.

Even if the plaintiff's case is bullshit, unlike most other types of civil cases, his suffering is not. He still has his nasty medical problem. Also unlike most other civil cases, even if his case is BS the plaintiff might not even know that. If a lawyer tells him his problem was the doctor's fault and he can get him millions, is he going to say no? Or even if he does know it, he might just be suing out of desperation because his medical problem prevents him from working and without a judgment he'll be out on the street.

There's no way you can reliably get juries to rule against a truly suffering plaintiff. It's not going to happen. They know the doctor has malpractice insurance and is not going to be on the hook himself. They know that the public at large will end up eating the cost but that definitely seems acceptable to help the poor suffering bastard in the courtroom.

Ah, that makes it EVER so much clearer!

I've heard that some buy it for the articles, but personally I'm all about the pictures.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Hey Khross I stopped taking you seriously when you swore you were leaving the country after the Obama win, and then mysteriously found an excuse to stay.

I at least follow through and don't make up excuses.