Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
ParticipantNot to sound all pessimistic and gloomy like Scaredy – but is anyone happy 100% of the time?
Are single people happy 100% of the time?
Marriage will not solve your problems – but it can make life richer and more enjoyable. It can also make life more miserable if you’re in a bad marriage.
Even if you have a job you love – do you love it every day of the week and never dream of chucking it all and retiring early?
Marriage is like that – you hope for and work for a marriage that adds more to your life than subtracts.
My parents were married for 47 years when my mom died. They were close to divorce a few times. But they worked it out. They were absolutely miserable during those rough spots. But they had good times AFTER the bad times – they’d managed to put things back together and enjoy life with each other again. It’s given me a clear view that marriage does not make you happy you have to work on your own happiness – and marriage doesn’t solve all your problems.
I’ve only been married 10 years – but it’s long enough that the “bloom is gone” – but we have a solid foundation and we still enjoy each others company. I’d rather be going through life with my husband than without him. Do we fight – sure. Am I 100% happy with everything he does… Hell no.
I’ve got a lot of friends just like me.
I also have friends who are divorced. Many of them should never have gotten married in the first place. But they didn’t have very realistic views of what a marriage is before they got married. I’m not surprised they’re divorced.
To make blanket statements that all marriage is good or all marriage is bad, that marriage is unnatural for everyone… that misses the fact there ARE good solid marriages out there.
ParticipantNot to sound all pessimistic and gloomy like Scaredy – but is anyone happy 100% of the time?
Are single people happy 100% of the time?
Marriage will not solve your problems – but it can make life richer and more enjoyable. It can also make life more miserable if you’re in a bad marriage.
Even if you have a job you love – do you love it every day of the week and never dream of chucking it all and retiring early?
Marriage is like that – you hope for and work for a marriage that adds more to your life than subtracts.
My parents were married for 47 years when my mom died. They were close to divorce a few times. But they worked it out. They were absolutely miserable during those rough spots. But they had good times AFTER the bad times – they’d managed to put things back together and enjoy life with each other again. It’s given me a clear view that marriage does not make you happy you have to work on your own happiness – and marriage doesn’t solve all your problems.
I’ve only been married 10 years – but it’s long enough that the “bloom is gone” – but we have a solid foundation and we still enjoy each others company. I’d rather be going through life with my husband than without him. Do we fight – sure. Am I 100% happy with everything he does… Hell no.
I’ve got a lot of friends just like me.
I also have friends who are divorced. Many of them should never have gotten married in the first place. But they didn’t have very realistic views of what a marriage is before they got married. I’m not surprised they’re divorced.
To make blanket statements that all marriage is good or all marriage is bad, that marriage is unnatural for everyone… that misses the fact there ARE good solid marriages out there.
Participant[quote=flu]What about mal-practice lawsuits and mal-practice insurance. It’s pretty expensive. Are there finally caps on this?[/quote]
California has had caps on medical malpractice since 1975. You can sue for unlimited MEDICAL costs if there is malpractice, but the non-medical costs (pain and suffering, etc) is capped. And that cap has not risen since it was first put in place.
The biggest issues I have with the bill is that it didn’t eliminate the anti-trust exemption and it didn’t allow for reimportation of pharmaceuticals. Those would have created real reform.
Participant[quote=flu]What about mal-practice lawsuits and mal-practice insurance. It’s pretty expensive. Are there finally caps on this?[/quote]
California has had caps on medical malpractice since 1975. You can sue for unlimited MEDICAL costs if there is malpractice, but the non-medical costs (pain and suffering, etc) is capped. And that cap has not risen since it was first put in place.
The biggest issues I have with the bill is that it didn’t eliminate the anti-trust exemption and it didn’t allow for reimportation of pharmaceuticals. Those would have created real reform.
Participant[quote=flu]What about mal-practice lawsuits and mal-practice insurance. It’s pretty expensive. Are there finally caps on this?[/quote]
California has had caps on medical malpractice since 1975. You can sue for unlimited MEDICAL costs if there is malpractice, but the non-medical costs (pain and suffering, etc) is capped. And that cap has not risen since it was first put in place.
The biggest issues I have with the bill is that it didn’t eliminate the anti-trust exemption and it didn’t allow for reimportation of pharmaceuticals. Those would have created real reform.
Participant[quote=flu]What about mal-practice lawsuits and mal-practice insurance. It’s pretty expensive. Are there finally caps on this?[/quote]
California has had caps on medical malpractice since 1975. You can sue for unlimited MEDICAL costs if there is malpractice, but the non-medical costs (pain and suffering, etc) is capped. And that cap has not risen since it was first put in place.
The biggest issues I have with the bill is that it didn’t eliminate the anti-trust exemption and it didn’t allow for reimportation of pharmaceuticals. Those would have created real reform.
Participant[quote=flu]What about mal-practice lawsuits and mal-practice insurance. It’s pretty expensive. Are there finally caps on this?[/quote]
California has had caps on medical malpractice since 1975. You can sue for unlimited MEDICAL costs if there is malpractice, but the non-medical costs (pain and suffering, etc) is capped. And that cap has not risen since it was first put in place.
The biggest issues I have with the bill is that it didn’t eliminate the anti-trust exemption and it didn’t allow for reimportation of pharmaceuticals. Those would have created real reform.
ParticipantDavid Frum’s take on the passage of the bill.
(Frum was a speechwriter for Bush)http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
For the ultra conservatives decrying this bill – it’s an eye opening read.
ParticipantDavid Frum’s take on the passage of the bill.
(Frum was a speechwriter for Bush)http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
For the ultra conservatives decrying this bill – it’s an eye opening read.
ParticipantDavid Frum’s take on the passage of the bill.
(Frum was a speechwriter for Bush)http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
For the ultra conservatives decrying this bill – it’s an eye opening read.
ParticipantDavid Frum’s take on the passage of the bill.
(Frum was a speechwriter for Bush)http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
For the ultra conservatives decrying this bill – it’s an eye opening read.
ParticipantDavid Frum’s take on the passage of the bill.
(Frum was a speechwriter for Bush)http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
For the ultra conservatives decrying this bill – it’s an eye opening read.
ParticipantI just hope the house reconciliation stuff passes in the senate. The Senate version does not eliminate the anti-trust exemptions. The House reconciliation bill puts that in.
On some of the points mentioned previously… California already has medical malpractice tort reform. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg you are limited to $200k or so. The limit has not gone up since it passed in the 1975.
Here in CA we have very inexpensive health insurance compared to back east. My health insurance (same employer) was cut in half when I moved from Philly to San Diego. I assume this is because of the tort reform.
The largest health insurer in San Diego is Kaiser Permanente, a non-profit. I’ve got them. I am VERY pleased with my family’s doctors. My parents oncologists were REALLY good. Yes, I had to pay out of pocket when I wanted the genetic cancer test – I’m fine with that. (Was one dead relative short of meeting their criteria.) That’s the ONLY thing that Kaiser has denied me coverage for. But it’s no frills. No private rooms if you’re hospitalized. They don’t cover removal of skin-tags – expect you to pay for that yourself. But if you’re sick, or doing preventative care – they’re good.
This bill has some important fixes.
It eliminates the lifetime cap. As a person who has seen 2 family members fight and beat cancer… only to have a separate, unrelated cancer occur 20-30 years later – I am VERY afraid of lifetime caps. (and a 3rd member fight a long battle with her first and only cancer) It doesn’t take much before costs start accruing.
It addresses rescission. Where insurance companies take your money for years, then dump you if you get sick.
The rhetoric on the floor of the house last night, during the debate, was pretty over the top. One of the GOP congressmen conflated “Totalitarian Communist China” with the health care bill. I can see calling it socialist – but not communist. The shout of “Baby Killer” to Stupak… former darling of the GOP until he decided to vote for the bill. The exchange between Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Drier was completely rude (both parties involved.)
All in all, it’s far from a perfect bill – but it does address some of the problems. I hope, over time, more can be done to correct and fix the problems that still exist.
ParticipantI just hope the house reconciliation stuff passes in the senate. The Senate version does not eliminate the anti-trust exemptions. The House reconciliation bill puts that in.
On some of the points mentioned previously… California already has medical malpractice tort reform. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg you are limited to $200k or so. The limit has not gone up since it passed in the 1975.
Here in CA we have very inexpensive health insurance compared to back east. My health insurance (same employer) was cut in half when I moved from Philly to San Diego. I assume this is because of the tort reform.
The largest health insurer in San Diego is Kaiser Permanente, a non-profit. I’ve got them. I am VERY pleased with my family’s doctors. My parents oncologists were REALLY good. Yes, I had to pay out of pocket when I wanted the genetic cancer test – I’m fine with that. (Was one dead relative short of meeting their criteria.) That’s the ONLY thing that Kaiser has denied me coverage for. But it’s no frills. No private rooms if you’re hospitalized. They don’t cover removal of skin-tags – expect you to pay for that yourself. But if you’re sick, or doing preventative care – they’re good.
This bill has some important fixes.
It eliminates the lifetime cap. As a person who has seen 2 family members fight and beat cancer… only to have a separate, unrelated cancer occur 20-30 years later – I am VERY afraid of lifetime caps. (and a 3rd member fight a long battle with her first and only cancer) It doesn’t take much before costs start accruing.
It addresses rescission. Where insurance companies take your money for years, then dump you if you get sick.
The rhetoric on the floor of the house last night, during the debate, was pretty over the top. One of the GOP congressmen conflated “Totalitarian Communist China” with the health care bill. I can see calling it socialist – but not communist. The shout of “Baby Killer” to Stupak… former darling of the GOP until he decided to vote for the bill. The exchange between Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Drier was completely rude (both parties involved.)
All in all, it’s far from a perfect bill – but it does address some of the problems. I hope, over time, more can be done to correct and fix the problems that still exist.
-
AuthorPosts
