Disclaimer

1) You don't choose to get cancer, like you choose to drink and drive. 2) I dunno if you've been reading the news... but the health care industry is the next big collapse if we don't DO SOMETHING about it

Actually' date=' I haven't... I've researched the credentials of them in my network, but that's about the extent I could - and I haven't made a selection yet. I don't have a 'primary care physician' since I left my parents roof. I guess either I misinterpreted what you meant by backing the insurance industry, or something - I thought you meant like, they back fannie/freddie (ie. won't let them fail), you mean back as in 'support'? Agreed' date=' customers can still be railroaded, but this is what you get when you get a bill full of lobbyist, partisan, 'compromises'.... fail, but step in the right direction. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this and how it applies to hospitals being self-sufficient... Trust me, I haven't forgotten them

Reprimand system? W T F?

So you've seen it? Because that's pretty much the plot - Mick is cooking meth, and Britt is his gal.

When you're done with your body, you can sell it to science. The sooner you quit living the sooner you can sell, the more money can can get for it!

All the drugs are identical in manufacture. And through no fault of her own, cannot identify the specific source, but again that's irrelevant because all pills were identical and it was happenstance whether her prescription was from source A, B, C, D, or E. This is why I mentioned the market-share, but you can statistically say that if A,B,C sources had produced 90% of the market, then D,E should be only 10% liable. You can split the liability based on the records of how much each source produced. I understand the analogy, but it's not equivalent. Drugs are regulated differently from alcohol, and you don't need a prescription (meaning she consulted with her physician on this) to get alcohol. The effects of alcohol are more or less widely known. This is usually not the case with drugs, which is a risk in itself - but that's another separate sidebar for another time.

Once again, the "free market" will not come to your aid when it comes to health insurance. Just think about insurance, the whole goal is to get you to pay something for a service that HAS to cost less than what you give them in order for them to make a profit - spread over all their customers. I don't think health insurance should be a for-profit industry... car insurance, home insurance, fine - you can live without a car and a home, you can't LIVE without medication or medically necessary surgeries. You shop for your doctors? Where do you get all the information necessary to do so? There's no doctor exchange website that I'm aware of that compares credentials, prices, and reviews. So, are you sure you're actually shopping? And, I'm pretty sure you don't have access to that one doctor in California that you really want, you're stuck with the local yokel doctors due to convenience and timeliness. So it's pretty much a local cartel. I guess I didn't read where it said the FedGov would back the insurance companies. Oversight and backing are different things. You have a link I can read? So you concede Medicaid is a necessity, but you also believe a medical issue is grounds to cause someone to go into bankruptcy? So, if you worked for 30+ years, saved for your retirement, your 'nest egg', and its fair that your lifelong work and income could leave you with one doctor visit? You're diagnosed with cancer, your insurance drops you, all the money is coming out of your pocket now while you scramble to give away all your assets to people to hide them from the bill collectors (some of which can't be given away or hidden soon enough)... and once that's dried up, the govt picks up the tab. Versus, someone who had no retirement, no savings, got cancer, and just goes on gov't subsidy right away since they have no assets. Where's the incentive for normal people to save? That's not right. On the bankruptcy thing, who gets shafted there - the creditors, well, if the hospital can't afford their bills from taking care of people who just up and file for bankruptcy, then guess what? No more hospital. Why should the staff, doctors, nurses, admins at the hospital get shafted? "Thanks for taking care of me, sorry I can't pay you, I have no monies, hopefully some rich people will come in and get sick for you", but they don't - because they do the same thing any rational people would do, hide their assets from the creditors and let the gov't foot the bill. So, if the gov't is footing the bill on all this stuff ANYWAY, why are we playing these games? The people making money are the lawyers and insurance companies on top of all this mess. It's more economical and keeps the society healthier if medical issues DON'T cause people to lose all their assets or go bankrupt.

I gave my opinion prior, then looked it up to confirm

Invoking the 'blood from a turnip' argument. The 3 remaining companies. You can name all 5 in the lawsuit, but obviously any award from a defunct entity isn't going to yield any monetary compensation. The awards can be proportional to the amount of product they had in the marketplace. The origin of the drug isn't relevant so much as the drug itself caused the issue, therefore any makers of the drug are liable. The case is mentioned in my Summers v. Tice link in the other thread. S*****l vs. A***** Labs (redacted to give other people a legit chance to weigh in)

You sir, are about 5 post too late - same thread. http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=396048&postcount=17 I'd say I got it right.

Movie night? I kind of imagine this as a bio pic of her life. Yea, sure it's a movie. Watch it. Now.

I understand your argument' date=' and that would work wonderfully if everyone was as responsible as you, never got hurt, never got sick, never did drugs or lived unhealthy lifestyles... but 'these people' end up at the doorsteps of the hospital - and then what? Ok, if Congress can only regulate commerce, but can't regulate 'non-commerce' as the article states, then the backdoor is just to increase taxes (or reduce funding in other areas) and setup another Medicaid-like fund to pay for all these people who can't afford to pay for themselves. I mean, technical language isn't going to be a roadblock, the US gov't could setup a single-payer if they wanted and just say "Hey everyone, as an added benefit of being an American, here's health coverage, it's included in your taxes, like is our military and education, aren't we great?" And, how else do you dissuade people from doing irresponsible things? Jail times/fines. Typically, the responsible people that play by the rules want the people that don't, to be held accountable, no? Ever been hit by an uninsured motorist? The way I see it is we have two options here: 1) Continue as we are - meaning skyrocketing medical costs where our tax dollars are still subsidizing care for the poor and/or irresponsible without health insurance at the current rate, regardless of how much I live a healthy lifestyle. or 2) Pass some legislation make everyone contribute [i']something. Those currently contributing nothing with the expectation of care will be mandated to contribute something through the threat of fine/jail. Something > nothing, so even if we are all still footing the tab, it could be a few bucks less than it was.

You assume we'd LET you ride with us

Because I wasn't. If I meant FOXbody, I would've said FOXbody. I meant F-body, just like I said. You obviously know as much about muscle cars as you do about bikes and insurance.

Must've been expensive to break that lease.

http://jalopnik.com/5431328/dallas-shop-offers-free-nobel-peace-prize-with-oil-change

It's true... I thought he was joking. Mj on the beach!

You could if you didn't owe your parents money... Are they even charging you rent to live at home since you're older than 18?

Bwaahahahahahaha! Get a clue kid.

So it's your buddy's fault you ain't ballin' no mo'