dayman

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone. Of course that isn't what I'm saying. Ok well first off I haven't read the damn thing. But that was the way it was explained to me by someone who worked with the creation of it (directly with members of congress and the white house) and who I know is qualified to speak on it (although certainly is not the God of all things related to the Bill). Anyway I did go ahead and tool around looking for somewhere in there I could reference. Obviously you can pick apart the specifics of what I said before but the idea is insurance companies still have some control over their enrollment. ‘‘SEC. 2702 ø42 U.S.C. 300gg–1¿. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) GUARANTEED ISSUANCE OF COVERAGE IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET.—Subject to subsections (b) through (e), eachhealth insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage. ‘‘(b) ENROLLMENT.— ‘‘(1) RESTRICTION.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in coverage described in such subsection to open or special enrollment periods. ‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) shall, in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (3), establish special enrollment periods for qualifying events (under section 603 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). ‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations with respect to enrollment periods under paragraphs (1) and (2). The plaintiff and the spill incident. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old grandmother named Stella Liebeck, was not driving, nor was the vehicle moving when the injury occurred. While the car was stopped, Mrs. Liebeck, who was sitting in the passenger seat, tried to hold the coffee cup between her knees as she removed the lid. The cup tipped over, spilling the contents into her lap. The injury. Mrs. Liebeck’s injury was anything but trivial. The scalding-hot coffee caused third-degree burns over 16% of her body, including her genital area. She had to be hospitalized for eight days. She required extensive skin grafts and was permanently scarred. She was disabled for a period of two years. During the ensuing trial, Mrs. Liebeck’s physician testified that her injury was one of the worst cases of scalding he’d ever seen. The coffee. At the time, McDonalds’ corporate specifications explicitly called for coffee to be served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. An expert witness testified that liquids at this temperature will cause third degree burns of human skin in two to seven seconds. (Coffee served at home is typically 135 to 140 degrees.) McDonalds’ culpability. During discovery, McDonald’s was required to produce corporate documents of similar cases. More than 700(!) claims had been made against McDonald’s, and many of the victims had suffered third-degree burns similar to Mrs. Liebeck’s. Yet the company had refused to change its policy, supposedly because a consultant had recommended the high temperature as a way to maintain optimum taste. Some have speculated that the real reason for the high temperature was to slow down consumption of the coffee, reducing the demand for free refills. Greed? Despite the pain caused by her injury, and the lengthy and expensive treatments she required, Mrs. Liebeck originally offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. The corporation offered her a mere $800, so the case went to trial. The settlement. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Mrs. Liebeck, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, essentially as punishment of McDonald’s for its callous treatment of Mrs. Liebeck, and its years of ignoring hundreds of similar injuries. This amount was held to be reasonable given that it represented only two days’ worth of McDonalds’ revenue from coffee sales alone. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, however, to $480,000. After further negotiation, Mrs. Liebeck ultimately received $640,000. When the first assertion is so broad and based w/ no "logic" of it's own how do you expect me to combat it with reasoned analysis? "The way the bill is written" will put insurance companies out of business? ok...

Well what is so unfair about that? And that McDonald's case is basically the face of propaganda for tort-reform.

Have good lawyers, pick a good jury, have an orderly presentation of evidence and clear experts. That's all you can do.

wise words from 3rdlng of all posters

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

If everyone has a policy they aren't worried about it. Fact. And it's Mr. Dumbass. Pronounced due-moss.

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

LOL. Classic.

Take your small victories, small minded one.

3rdnling I've interacting with you before. I know better than to try and slip one by you.

I would actually like to know a bit more about what exactly Mitt accomplished in business. The good and the bad. Any suggestions on where to go? A good neutral article I can find it all in?

haha c'mon now rich folk pay a lot of taxes...to say only poor people pay taxes is hurting my ability to be taken seriously here MDP...haha...

Well like I said above, this isn't a reform that will happen with a piece of legislation IMO (generated by either side) outside of a single payer system in which case I guess you could accelerate the process but it still couldn't be overnight (and either way I'm not here to advocate a single payer system). Obviously the government is a huge purchaser but this change will still start in the private sector and it is moving that way slowly. Your insurance company and your doctor developing a more outcome based payment system and then (necessarily) you driving down the cost of your own care by shopping for the services you do need in a way that more resembles a free market, thus driving down the cost of care (and coincidentally driving up the demand for general practitioner services relative to specialists). As for why I'm fine with ACA? Because of all the good things it does bring. Yes you could argue that maybe it would be better to continue to put off the issues effecting the uninsured for 10 or so years until we can work out what we are dealing with...but to me that is not acceptable morally b/c really this is something that needs to be addressed yesterday. And yes I know everyone ultimately receives the care they absolutely need but as has been repeated over and over in discussions like this there's the shifting of costs issue (and explosion of emergency costs issue) which does go to the underline cost of healthcare. Things like the 80/20 rule, the mandate/preexisting injury system, the extension of the age the child can stay on and other plan-related reform...it should theoretically encourage competition among plans it does try and address fraud...etc...I'm not ready to trash it. I call it progress.

Well from what I can tell Romney, the GOP, and a lot of voters around America

1. Agreed but let's be real... 2. Agreed 3. Disagree but you acknowledge that the cost is negligible so whatever..but just know tort reform is evil. 4. THIS IS THE ENTIRE DEAL! This IS how you reform healthcare. You change the pay structure, and then you make sure that those making the purchasing decision have enough skin in the game so that the industry actually works like a free market. 5. Agreed but let's be real...what this is really saying is the mandate is necessary...which I agree with just tell this to the GOP and remind them it was their idea please... ...anyway the point of my post was to just make sure everyone knew my feeling on the subject (lol)...point 4 is where it is at and that's serious talk....

You think it's impossible to raise it without contributing to further decline? Direct cause and effect? Don't you think this issue is overblown?

LOL. Anyway...on this issue there just is no polite way to categorize anyone that is actively trying to prevent gay people from obtaining a marriage. And saying "I have a traditional view on the matter" is a cop out and means nothing.

I'm on your side as far as the AFA being fine. But I'll address this issue b/c none of the anti-Obama side seem to get it. NO LEGISLATION WILL ON IT'S OWN...and there are reforms that will effect the way the government pays within the existing AFA that are in line with the LONG TERM CHANGE that must occur (will take years). Yes you could say "well we're worry about the uninsured in 10 years when the system is reformed" but that's not acceptable by many people's standards (including mine). The bottom line is the insurance industry is in the beginning stage of shifting from fee-for-service format to a fee-for-result structure, it's going to take time...maybe 20 years honestly to fully reform..there is no magic legislation that Republicans have up their sleeve that can somehow accelerate this. There isn't. And leaving to the states and just doing nothing is just ridiculous the states do a lot of things better than the federal government but healthcare isn't one of them. It has to do with the contracts the insurance companies have with the providers, same w/ government, and so on. Also it has to do with people purchasing INDIVIDUAL services having more skin in the game so it works more like a free market and you shop for a service instead of paying 1000% more for an MRI b/c the doctor you see set you up an appointment at the hospital. What you've said is an absolute crock, sir. I'm sorry but there's no other response to what you wrote than to just say you don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about "the way the law is written" is going to put health insurance companies out of business I promise you that. You can choose not to believe me, but just know you sound like an idiot. 90% of Americans have no idea how their own healthcare plan works. You would judge healthcare reform off public sentiment?

Obama is a straight up socialist in people's eyes for compromising on the single payer issue, adopting the Republican mandate, and starting to reform the industry. How in God's name would you expect him to actually pass legislation that directly effects the COST? At this point...it is what it is and we'll take it and begin moving forward. Not sure what ideas the right have put forth to curb cost or reform insurance btw but if you know please tell me...

Ok, so what where would you have it now?

Stay ignorant on this subject DC...stay ignorant.

You can parrot that until the day you die. This is America. The point is no rational person denies there is a point at which tax rates are too much. We are far from there.

Healthcare reform is not "good." Healthcare reform is necessary. The 80/20 rule is good. Pushing back the date kids can stay on the plan is not only good, but in the modern state of things is necessary. The mandate is of course necessary to not denying preexisting injuries and of course a Republican idea and an Obama compromise (don't tell the crazy ignorant that though). Reform is a process and will take this plan, implementation, fine tuning, over the course of years. We must start with this, and then continue to work on it. But no, some idiots think there exists some magic reform that we could just work out and know it would work brilliantly. Others may even go as far as to deny any reform is necessary (the truly lost). Props to you topic creator, just know you aren't alone. "Killing it dead" is just backwards and the kind of thing that Romney is just dead wrong on.

Last I checked there are no wealthy Americans. The filthy rich have all renounced citizenship.

Well said and by a man I am currently hating on in another thread. Isn't politics wonderful? Anyway, even though I can admit that people on both sides can sometimes do/say things that suck. The truth is, "both sides" don't suck. The side that wants to oppress people with government power sucks.