alan
Member
Heard on radio news broadcasts this afternoon the following about the USSC.
1. They have said that individuals, denied health care based on "administrative rulings" made by their HMO's, cannot sue in state court, that they must sue in federal court, where at present they can only obtain recompense for the actual cost of treatment. Punitive damages or malpractice awards are out, giving one hell of a leg up to guess who, to insurers, who all to often play the role of dishonest bookmaker, such being a bookmaker that takes the bet, but when he looses, refuses to pay off. By the way, in case the facts of the matter had escaped anyone's attention, there is absolutely no difference between Ladbrokes down the street, the guy who operates out of the back room at the barbershop, and your friendly insurance company, other than the quality of their respective offices décor.
2. In the case of Larry Hibble v. Nevada, re Mr. Hibbel's refusal to identify himself to a police officer, the court found by 5 to 4 vote, that the individual had no right to refuse to furnish their name to a police officer. One wonders as to what additional diminishment of the individuals right to privacy, or right to be left alone might follow, and or how soon such might turn out to be in the offing. How soon might it be before "Papers Please" substitutes for Hi There, not to mention how long before "Please" becomes an ever more dim memory?
Strikes me that your elected things need to hear about the foregoing, and that they need to hear about it loud and long.
1. They have said that individuals, denied health care based on "administrative rulings" made by their HMO's, cannot sue in state court, that they must sue in federal court, where at present they can only obtain recompense for the actual cost of treatment. Punitive damages or malpractice awards are out, giving one hell of a leg up to guess who, to insurers, who all to often play the role of dishonest bookmaker, such being a bookmaker that takes the bet, but when he looses, refuses to pay off. By the way, in case the facts of the matter had escaped anyone's attention, there is absolutely no difference between Ladbrokes down the street, the guy who operates out of the back room at the barbershop, and your friendly insurance company, other than the quality of their respective offices décor.
2. In the case of Larry Hibble v. Nevada, re Mr. Hibbel's refusal to identify himself to a police officer, the court found by 5 to 4 vote, that the individual had no right to refuse to furnish their name to a police officer. One wonders as to what additional diminishment of the individuals right to privacy, or right to be left alone might follow, and or how soon such might turn out to be in the offing. How soon might it be before "Papers Please" substitutes for Hi There, not to mention how long before "Please" becomes an ever more dim memory?
Strikes me that your elected things need to hear about the foregoing, and that they need to hear about it loud and long.