Tweet
Huh thought they routinely denied every claim based on metrics that only a percentage would fight the charges.
-
-
If that is a pervasive strategy, then I was ignorant of it.Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post"...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUteComment
-
Happens routinely in my office.Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post"You interns are like swallows. You shit all over my patients for six weeks and then fly off."
"Don't be sorry, it's not your fault. It's my fault for overestimating your competence."Comment
-
I’m not the partner in our practice that oversees billing. Maybe it’s happening a lot in pathology also.Originally posted by hostile View Post
It’s just all so wrong."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUteComment
-
-
If the tax is now zero and there is no penalty, then there really is no longer a mandate, right?Originally posted by All-American View Post
It was originally ruled that it could be unconstitutional because of the mandate, but because the mandate was really a tax it was ok.
So now it's unconstitutional because the tax went away? But if the tax went away then so did the mandate. It would seem nonsensical to say now that it's unconstitutional because of a mandate that is effectively no longer there. The chances of SCOTUS agreeing with the Texas judge's ruling seems extremely remote to me.
But if they do somehow reverse the precedent they set themselves a couple of years ago and make themselves look illogical in the process, I don't see how that would help Trump once much of his base starts losing their insurance. And that might coincide with the economy slowing down or possibly going into recession, which analysts are expecting will start to happen in the next year or so. Politically this seems mostly like a lose-lose for Trump.Last edited by BlueK; 03-28-2019, 12:21 PM.Comment
-
If one is looking for something to do on wet afternoons, Googling Trump's promises on health care provides a fun (and very reassuring!) diversion.
He said this to Larry King in 1999 but his views have since become more insightful.If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.
I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don't even know about will be devised because we’re going to come up with plans—health care plans—that will be so good. And so much less expensive both for the country and for the people. And so much better.It’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.Comment
-
I don't know how one couldn't conclude that the real problem Trump has with Obamacare is that it was Obama who did it.Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
He's promised pie in the sky socialist medicine in the past, so his position on Obamacare has nothing to do with conservatism or fiscal responsibility.Comment
-
-
A federal judge just ruled against a Trump executive order from 2017 which was designed to weaken Obamacare. The ruling says that because the Labor Department rule created by the executive order allows for certain associations to ignore some of the regulations of the ACA, that it can't be upheld. Here's the thing for me -- legally, even if you disagree with the ACA or think whatever Trump's executive order did was a good thing, the president can't override congress with an executive order. Yes, I'm sure presidents from both parties at times want to do that, but it's not legal and it's a horrible precedent. Good for the court to uphold separation of powers. For two years Trump had a GOP majority in both houses. They should have been able to come up with some kind of compromise that would have improved the ACA or created something else better. But they didn't.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/polit...rts/index.htmlLast edited by BlueK; 03-29-2019, 08:08 AM.Comment
-
"If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!Comment
-
I don't think that will matter in this case.Originally posted by Uncle Ted View PostOn to the supreme court!
Comment
-
Americans borrowed $88 billion to pay for medical bills last year
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...year/39287831/Comment
-
That's a lot less than it would be under "Medicare for All".Originally posted by tooblue View Post"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. UchtdorfComment
-
Under medicare for all no body would be borrowing to pay for health care.Originally posted by Moliere View Post
What's alarming is the amount of interest paid on the borrowed $88 billion :yikes:Comment
Comment