If Obama wins...(HYPOTHETICAL)

#26
#26
CaedmonVol said:
That's pretty funny. Oh well, one day you'll be old too and you'll see what it's like. Maybe you'll be forced to flee the U.S. when Obama and his socialist party take over and you'll become a refugee in some foreign land, where you spend the rest of your life. Then, one day, when you're like 80 years old, some bitter young person will make fun of you for having bad eyesight.
Click to expand...

You too can make a difference and prevent this horrible story by voting McCain for President:superman:
 
#27
#27
CaedmonVol said:
That's pretty funny. Oh well, one day you'll be old too and you'll see what it's like. Maybe you'll be forced to flee the U.S. when Obama and his socialist party take over and you'll become a refugee in some foreign land, where you spend the rest of your life. Then, one day, when you're like 80 years old, some bitter young person will make fun of you for having bad eyesight.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize the balloting booths in question were all located within nursing homes.
 
#29
#29
kptvol said:
I didn't realize the balloting booths in question were all located within nursing homes.
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully McCain will win and there will be no more Social Security. Then we can finally start getting rid of those stupid old people.
 
#30
#30
CaedmonVol said:
Well, hopefully McCain will win and there will be no more Social Security. Then we can finally start getting rid of those stupid old people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Social Security is a really successful program with a bright future. We really need to hang onto it.
 
#34
#34
CaedmonVol said:
Last I checked, the Constitution permits all citizens aged 18 or over to vote for president. There is no intelligence test. If those "morons" made a mistake that favored Bush instead of Gore, I'm pretty sure you would argue like hell that those votes should be counted.
Click to expand...

Please show where in the Constitution any individual has the right to vote for the presidency.

Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
CaedmonVol said:
It will be if we hire private contractors to do it and establish tort reform to cut off the frivolous personal-injury suits.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like something Obama is going to want. It's going to suck (should our government be stupid enough to try it). There's not really any getting around it.
 
#37
#37
CaedmonVol said:
It will be if we hire private contractors to do it and establish tort reform to cut off the frivolous personal-injury suits.
Click to expand...

He still hasn't told us what the penalty will be for small business that cannot afford to provide it to employees. This will be the end for many small businesses.
 
#38
#38
Headed For Home said:
He still hasn't told us what the penalty will be for small business that cannot afford to provide it to employees. This will be the end for many small businesses.
Click to expand...

He will come up with the UHC Bailout plan. (in other words, you and i will pay for it)
 
#41
#41
CaedmonVol said:
Way to push the conversation forward. Real charmer, that BigPapa.
Click to expand...
why push forward when you make senseles statements of that nature? Sounds like the similar drivel that was rampant prior to Hillary's utter failure in 93.

Tort reform is crap and unAmerican and thes contractors are a pipe dream who cannot possibly deliver cheaper due to the nature of gov't contracting and gov't regulation in the industry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
why push forward when you make senseles statements of that nature? Sounds like the similar drivel that was rampant prior to Hillary's utter failure in 93.

Tort reform is crap and unAmerican and thes contractors are a pipe dream who cannot possibly deliver cheaper due to the nature of gov't contracting and gov't regulation in the industry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Frivolous lawsuits are a huge drain on the economy -- do you deny that?
 
#44
#44
CaedmonVol said:
Frivolous lawsuits are a huge drain on the economy -- do you deny that?
Click to expand...
saying they can't happen is not how America works.

Tort attorneys are bloodsucking turds and they have generated thi mess by marketing hard, but who are we to say that people cannot sue or to limit how much they might sue for. Civil litigation would be gutted if we did away with tort.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
CaedmonVol said:
OK fine, to VOTE. (26th Amendment)
Click to expand...
According to the Constitution and the amendments concerning voting rights, the only thing that is prohibited is restricting the privilege of voting based on race, gender, or age (once one has turned 18)...nor can they charge a poll tax.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
BigPapaVol said:
saying they can't happen is not how America works.

Tort attorneys are bloodsucking turds and they have generated thi mess by marketing hard, but who are we to say that people cannot sue or to limit how much they might sue for. Civil litigation would be gutted if we did away with tort.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Right, that's why it's called tort reform, not tort abolition. One simple thing you can do is place caps on non-economic damages. Thus, the injured patient who gets a hatchet job by a bad doctor gets compensated, yet does not get skys-the-limit awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages. What's so Unamerican about that? And you can penalize people for bringing bad law suits, by making the loser pay like they do in every other major Western legal system.
 
#47
#47
CaedmonVol said:
Right, that's why it's called tort reform, not tort abolition. One simple thing you can do is place caps on non-economic damages. Thus, the injured patient who gets a hatchet job by a bad doctor gets compensated, yet does not get skys-the-limit awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages. What's so Unamerican about that? And you can penalize people for bringing bad law suits, by making the loser pay like they do in every other major Western legal system.
Click to expand...

limiting awards is not a part of our system. Trial by jury of peers is just that. Setting arbitrary limits does not account for all situations and is senseless.

Frivolous lawsuits should be fined, but decent judges can keep them from the system and that's where the rubber should meet the road, not in law.

The idea that frivolous lawsuits is driving pricing is garbage. Prices have slimbed over 12% per year forever and lawsuits have not climbed similarly. The costs are littered throughout the system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
BigPapaVol said:
limiting awards is not a part of our system. Trial by jury of peers is just that. Setting arbitrary limits does not account for all situations and is senseless.

Frivolous lawsuits should be fined, but decent judges can keep them from the system and that's where the rubber should meet the road, not in law.

The idea that frivolous lawsuits is driving pricing is garbage. Prices have slimbed over 12% per year forever and lawsuits have not climbed similarly. The costs are littered throughout the system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't understand. An injured person, business, or whatever is not denied a jury trial, just denied the right to ask the jury for unlimited damages beyond the fair value of compensation. It does account for all situations, and it's not senseless.

Why not just establish a loser-pay system like they have in England? They have way fewer baseless lawsuits.

And by the way, even if the number of frivolous lawsuits is not climbing, legal fees are. Do you know how expensive it is to defend a basic injury suit (or employment discrimination case) in federal court? Answer: enough to extort a very nice settlement out of a business before the case even gets off the ground. So the rising cost of health care is absolutely linked.
 
#49
#49
BigPapaVol said:
saying they can't happen is not how America works.

Tort attorneys are bloodsucking turds and they have generated thi mess by marketing hard, but who are we to say that people cannot sue or to limit how much they might sue for. Civil litigation would be gutted if we did away with tort.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

How dare you insult turds like that!!:realmad:
 
#50
#50
CaedmonVol said:
I don't understand. An injured person, business, or whatever is not denied a jury trial, just denied the right to ask the jury for unlimited damages beyond the fair value of compensation. It does account for all situations, and it's not senseless.

Why not just establish a loser-pay system like they have in England? They have way fewer baseless lawsuits.

And by the way, even if the number of frivolous lawsuits is not climbing, legal fees are. Do you know how expensive it is to defend a basic injury suit (or employment discrimination case) in federal court? Answer: enough to extort a very nice settlement out of a business before the case even gets off the ground. So the rising cost of health care is absolutely linked.
Click to expand...
docs and hospital don't pay exorbitant insurance fees due to the price of litigation, but I'm for forcing loser to pay. That's not tort reform, that's justice. Limiting penalties fits in Britain because in their hearts, they're socialists. Arbitrary values on health, life and mistakes is inherently unamerican and we're not into telling individuals their worth.

By the by, your party is the crowd hampering efforts at tort reform and doing so through your type and the ACLU.

The linkage you suggest is extremely weak and medical malpractice insurance would not drop drastically if something were enacted on that front.

The costs are littered throughout the system and none of those players is going to voluntarily give away money. These private contractor fantasms you're having are complete garbage. That's providing medical care via lowest cost provider and placing said provider in handcuffs. Limiting pay to docs with this method limits the docs willing to play, which is exactly what should not happen and is nothing akin to the lie that Obama is spreading about his own benefits.

Finally, if it's via contractor and that makes it dramatically, who pays for the bureaucracy between contractor and gov't, pays the spread to the contractor and pays for the care being provided that isn't being provided today? This littile answer should be cute, especially from an attorney with the apparent financial sense of Obama.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top