Law Questions and Answers

When it comes to healthcare why do people not help yourself to into consideration the costs involved in providing it..?

to everyone? If race start thinking it is "free" we are going to have unadulterated problems keeping costs down, which is what we have in a minute because people hold no clue what it costs, regardless.
Answers: citizen1...(whatever your entire name is)

the origin healthcare/prescriptions and everything associated with it costs so much more an america is simple. surrounded by america, you can file a lawsuit, and win millions and millions of dollars for stupidity. the apology it costs so much for perscriptions? pharmacuetical companies have to cover the costs of a adjectives lawsuit, because it WILL happen. private doctors office, have to retribution up to 100,000 dollars a month for malpractice insurance. here is an idea folks, use everything at your own risk. if you slip and fall, use a different sidewalk subsequent time, you had the preference to walk around the rime, or the crack in the sidewalk. if your medication doesn't work, use a different medication. if the doctor misdiagnosed you, use another doctor subsequent time, you shouldn't have put your duration in the hand of someone you didn't trust. and if you did trust them, why are you sueing them? they did what they could...

so there you shift citizen 1, the answer to your question, i will summarize it. Healthcare/Prescriptions, retribution way too much than they should own to for their insurance, so they pass the bill to us. Insurance companies rate out way more than they should, due to inane lawsuits and fraud, so they intervene the bill to healthcare providers/pharmacuetical companies. so the reason we remuneration too much for everything, is us. as a whole, we shoot ourselves contained by the foot with every lawsuit, near every act of insurance fraud. sucks, dont' it? paying for other peoples dishonesty.

by the process, to answer the actual question asked, i imagine universal healthcare is stupid, and i also contemplate that hostpitals being forced to treat everyone is stupid, if patients can't afford healthcare,tolerate them suffer, let them die, i don't fastidiousness. they should have gotten a undertaking, or whatever they needed to do receive covered. and yes, your destiny is in your control, other. its not my responsibilty or anyone elses to care for you, you should own been prepared, no exceptions. but in the order of the real examine, i assume universal haelthcare is inevitable, as within are too many idiots who hold the 'robin hood mentality' but don't realize they are the one getting robbed. and there isn't a system that everyone will agree on, so it ain't worth even arguing, or asking the put somebody through the mill. you all want to nouns smart to impress everyone on the internet you will never meet, thats stupid, argue roughly speaking something worthwhile, or at least something that can be agreed upon. not a soul will change their mind, so why spend your time arguing?
I've addressed this within another question, but the United States organization already spends more on health guardianship than any other developed country, and gets the smallest return for it.

Single-payer health systems run down costs less than our current system. It'd be a no-brainer, if it weren't for the screech zeal of the brainless.
yes -- this is what always happen with something specifically "free" -- economists call it "moral hazard" or the "problem of the commons".

it other results in overuse of the 'free' angelic and thus suboptimizes economic growth and income for everyone.
Fact: I buy Rx medication. If I buy 30 pills in the USA the cost is $300. If I buy impossible to tell apart medicine from an on-line pharmacy contained by Canada the cost is $70.

I think something like the cost because I pay for it. But privatized tablets in America is a scam.

The insurance companies spend so much money brainwashing gullible Americans that they work on slogans instead of facts.

Please explain to me why my medicine costs $70 a bottle within Canada and $300 a bottle in the USA.

I am an American citizen. I am not slice of the Canadian system.

Oh! and I pay for American Health Insurance, too. But, Blue Cross won't settle for my medicine.

Please state exactly what you expertise is surrounded by analyzing US medical costs.

Your question is not base on a single verifiable fact. You merely act close to a good robot echoing what Insurance company propaganda tell you.

Please answer my question. Why do similar medicines cost $70 for 30 pills within Canada and $300 for 30 pills in the USA. It's the exact same tablets. Shouldn't Canada's government system inflate the cost? So why is it $230 per bottle cheaper within Canada.

How come my great American Blue Cross Insurance won't pay for it?

I bet you can't come up near an explanation?

And since you analize the "costs". Why is a system that charges $230 more per bottle a better system.
Yes. Healthcare is expensive in the USA as money go into making money, not delivering healthcare. That is why so heaps people find the insurance policy they own does not pay out when they have need of it.

I live in the UK and work surrounded by the NHS (our universal robustness care system). It have problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system have. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US have worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care... Life expectancy and infant mortality data in the US are high than in other developed countries, despite more money man spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK within are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not dawdle are treated as emergencies. Also, contained by the UK, people can also enjoy private health consideration.

I can understand Americans self proud of living in the richest and most powerful country surrounded by the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where on earth babies die that would have a better occasion of life if born contained by another developed country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2...

Last of all, it is not the US that funds drug production for the rest of the world. As strange as it may give the impression of being to you, there are loads of drug companies that are not base in the USA. So, for the story, other countries do help fund the nouns of new drugs. I should know, I own been involved within various drug trials.

Whats the age limit to find visitation rights.?

do you have to be 18 or 21 to call in someone in prison or top-security prison?...cause i know kids cant turn in or can they.?
Answers: Call the young offenders` institution staff and ask them...at the same time you can ask them what the hours are for visit and if you can bring the prisoner anything.books.magazines.dispatch...
yes children can visit at prisons and jail

if they are 15 y/o or older consequently they need to own an id

Hiring policies and DUI?

If alcoholism is considered a disease, and the alcoholic has be treated for this disease and is in retrieval, can an employer discriminate against one with a dormant disease? If so, can an employer also discriminate against a cancer martyr that is surrounded by remission?
Answers: Again, yes. They can. It doesn't matter how you reword it, an employer can "discriminate" by any criteria they choose OTHER THAN femininity, race, religion, age, and disability (and we're chitchat medically documented, handicapped parking stuff here...not a "my shrink says I'm sick" variety of thing). Companies can't be forced to hire people beside DUIs.
DUI is a criminal offense. Alcoholism is an addiction. You can play at semantics, but the fact remains that once you're an user you're ALWAYS an addict. That and the reality that you engaged within a life-threatening criminal activity (DUI) would indeed factor into MY decision as an employer in relation to whether or not I wanted such an individual contained by a position of responsibility.

When do the Commons andor Eleat switch places then what subsequent?

flesyM http://www.soulcast.com/messenger..slowl... from the beginning contribute comments paloma
Answers: I guess they'll switch places when the "Commons" swot up they're actually "commoners", the "Eleat" are "elite", and hyperlinks organize to active page. It'll never happen. The few "Commons" who control to learn these things simply combine the "Eleats". The classes will never pull a "Freaky Friday". If they did, we'd conclude up an "Idiocracy".
I understand you WordBarker!!! Make your first vanished then jump past two lights your third night light make a right and a rushed left!!

The subsequent election the country and the middle class requests to be built up with responsible leaders consequently when things are good again we can hold the luxury of having irresposible Republican management.
Next will be next subsequent will be all beginnings same.
And Richard is wrong, wrong, wrong in the region of the first right-thatsa left, moved out, left.

Do we have the rights?

shouldn't we achieve to speak to people roughly issues but no one care you know what i mean
Answers: No, I don't know what you niggardly. What are you asking?
you have the right to speak,..but that does not mingy that the person you are speaking to have to listen,..

A friend of mine has be of sick with glandular confusion for 6 weeks,?

he has have sick notes from the doctor, but have yet to receive any sick wage. but the thing is he received his p45 within the post today. can they sack him without explaining?
Answers: If his contract states that he get sick pay, afterwards he should have received it on his commonplace pay year. Not all companies hand over you sick pay, so check previously taking any action on that side of things.

He should be entitled to SSP, which I believe is as a rule paid via your employer, again on the run of the mill pay time.

Unless you are a temporary hand or in probation they cannot sack you lacking reason, so I would suggest initially contacting his inspector or HR department to ask for an explanation. If they can't give a appropriate reason, he should contact the CAB who can travel over the details and advise him whether he have a case for unwarranted dismissal.
How long has he worked for them.

Normally No they can't. draw from to citizens advice bureau They must repay him if he has hand a sick line surrounded by and can;t sack him like that.

Check out acas pattern site also

www.acas.org.uk they can give warning on what steps he needs to run

Collection agency money scam for AT&T?

Hello friends, Happy Holidays!
Would the following sound similar to a holiday money scam?
Today I received a call from a collection agency aphorism I owed AT&T $50 since 2003, and insisted me to pay otherwise it will become a court appearance suitcase and if no show will become a summon, and then a warrant and I will become liable for more court charges. It does nouns scary so I be ready to grant them my credit card to pay in a jiffy. Then I thought to myself to check my record for such charges, but I probably don't own records stern in 2003. Anyway I asked their phone number to phone call back and when I did, it be a 877 number for Mexico resident and AT&T.

Would this sound resembling a holiday money scam? And would AT&T really take me to court for owing them $50 rear legs in 2003? And possible a court valise and summon and warrant and ending up owing more money than basically the $50?

Its shocking so please advise beside your professional background and experience.

Thank you and at ease Holidays!
Brian Rosnett
Answers: You need to read up on the federal debt collections perform.First off, constraint they send you proof. They must inwardly 30 days. Do not give them any info at adjectives. Then check your records. If you touch you don't owe them, send them a message demanding that they cease adjectives contact. They may take you to court. They must serve you and later they must prove it was you. You can not be arrrested. There will be no warrant. Even threatening specifically a violation of the ruling.
If you do decide to convey them money..ALWAYS send a money instruct. NEVER EVER a check, unless you want your entire account drained.

I would constraint proof and when they fail to provide it, emergency that they stop calling and document all converstaions
collections do not start and expiration with phone call. there requirements to be a PAPER trail of some sort. anytime someone calls and tell me anything like this, i ask where on earth the subpoena is.

Should I or should I not?

I recently get a divorce and I feel that I made a big mistake not getting the divorce but getting a insensible beat attorney, my lawyer be not looking out for my best interestest and when I threatened to fire him he stated that it would cost me to firee hime aroung a thousand dollars just to travel to the court and dismiss him as my lawyer so I be getting nothing from my ex and I only threw in the towel and get nothing out of the divorce he get the family home and everything within it. I got not anything. so I seeked another lawyer that told me I could over turn the shrewdness but I have a two month to do so and it will cost me $3,100 to carry a retainer and filing excise. should I or should I not?

any advice would be economically apriciated
Answers: It depends. How much does this new advocate think you would achieve in a settlement if you are successful? And how much more would you hold to spend to get it?
You are probably better stale spending this time and effort to acquire on with your life span.

Try and settle out of court with out a advocate if you can.

Lawyers will just suck the enthusiasm out of you and they are the only ones who win surrounded by a divorce case.

Why doesn't the entire country stop paying the TV licence?

What could the BBC or Government do then?

Or, articulate 1 Million people stop paying? Impossible to give somebody a lift that many to court and so others might follow.
Answers: I asked this impressively same question a year ago :p

Personally I agree that we shouldn't salary. In this day and age one Taxed to own a television beggars belief!

Arguments that the standard of programming would jump down are pointless programs are poor as it is, let the BBC draw their money from media hype like the other channel and Joe public can have some extra bread in their pockets for the rest of the taxes we are getting hit next to.

HAIL THE REVOLUTION!!!
Okay


what the heck
At first they would be agast,
But would only stop to broadcast.
Great idea!
Once we own conquered the governement on that one can we take on the local councils and stop paying council levy??
Do you really want to watch advert on every channel. I don't. So no I won't be joining you. Most of the things I survey are on BBC.
Where do I sign up?
Good idea.
The with the sole purpose problem is then that we'd adjectives probably be fined by the government or the BBC would stop broadcasting, going away us with the mostly, less-than-good programmes on ITV, Channel 4, Five.
Besides why would you want to? Having a commercial-free broadcaster is outstandingly rare in our time.
It's just a fine, and the Inland Revenue can efficiently fine that many culture.

It is a waste of money though, especially if you don't see TV. Anyway, there's many loopholes bygone the TV licence. You could say that the TV is singular used as a monitor for a games console or something, which means you don't own to pay the licence levy. This is especially handy given the PS3 will have TV expertise very soon - or you could in recent times hide the receiver.
You would, ultimately, lose the BBC. High quality drama (eg The Street), documentaries, Panorama, Newsnight, adjectives the stuff Attenborough does, good comedy approaching Lead Balloon, topical news quizzes approaching News for You, the actual news, the sport, adjectives the radio to cater for every taste: the catalogue of what the BBC does, and does well, is never-ending.

ALL without advert, because of the licence fee. It is such a small price to foot to enable us to retain what is undoubtedly the rock in the world's broadcasting crown.

Or do you prefer to allow Murdoch to dominate what you monitor, endlessly interrupted by mind-numbing advert (which I NEVER, EVER, watch).
advantages of having/watching tv and paying a tv license

1 - it's reasonably cheap for what u receive - turn it on anytime of the day and there's other something to watch
2 - it help to keep a troubled mind at sound. you can sit and mong out in front of a tv for hours - escapism!
3 - it great for kids - if you don't close to spending time with your kids a tv will sustain rid you of their annoyances as instead of annoying u they are watching tv!
4 - control - a tv is a great way to fix the viewer - messages through the surrounding substance of tv e.g. news, documentaries etc help to maintain the vision that society/establishment are never wrong and what you are being told/shown is the truth when contained by fact it could be a slump
5 - paying a tv license keeps lots of inhabitants in job!!
6 - a tv helps to hold on to loneliness at bay. lots of ancestors are lonely young and outmoded and a tv provides comfort in these stern times
7 - helps next to conversation skills. people who keep watch on tv can keep up next to other people and distribute them something to talk in the order of. although talking roughly what goes on on tv is frivolous and utterly reckless it seems associates do not want to talk around other more important issues similar to how their own life is going
8 - a tv fill an empty space within the living room

have i missed any out??

i don't enjoy a tv and haven't had one for going on for 12 years now so i don't pay envelope a tv license i'd much rather put up near the shyte in my enthusiasm and do other things to pass time. i'm my own entity and not many individuals talk to me cos they know i can't communicate about the x factor or eastbenders etc
I construe that people contained by the Uk are quite lucky.

In Ireland we hold to pay a TV licence of approx 100 pounds plus we STILL hold to sit through advertisments!

I would rather your system than ours!

Would you hire a ex- convict to run your business???

I would guarentee that 90% of the people who read this will speak hell no, but many of these same those are willing to vote for Hillary, she is not a ex- con but she should be, she and Bill own been involved within so much corruption theivery, murder, drugs, what else?? remember Vince Foster? or the land deal Hilary put together and scammed so many populace out of their money?? what about the drug running operation run out of Ark, where Bill as Governor provided surety for the Bush-Clinton drug importing syndicate,have that been a ordaniry citizen they would hold been put within prison for life sentences long ago,google this please,
Obama?? you would not consent to a ex-con run your business nor even work for you for fear that he would rob you of your success, yet so frequent of these same people are feeling like to vote for a black muslim that would have the potential to not solitary rob their business but to rob and destroy their country?? please explain,
Answers: Hell no.I don't know how they could even be considered as a lawful candidate.
i would be liable to hire an ex-convict, depending on his crime. Anyone can make a mistake. Have you never done something wrong? Anyone can amend.
And Obama is not a muslim, but even if he was, what does that hold to do with his politics?? I am Christian, but I know that here are some better muslims out there later there are Christians.
A Black Musliim that would own the potential...

You're an idiot.

Who wouldn't have the potential to screw the country over if they be elected President?

Now, to answer the question that you didn't really trouble about. YES I would hire an ex-convict to run my business. People can swot up from their mistakes and come out better for them. That doesnt mean I'd hire ANY ex-con. But if they impressed me sure I would.
It adjectives depends on what his conviction was. If it be for something like vehicular manslaughter, I probably would -- providing he be otherwise well-qualified for the job, unsurprisingly. I wouldn't hire him because he was an ex-convict, nor would I not hire him for that rationale, unless his conviction had something to do next to business (embezzlement, fraud, etc.)

If his grammar be better than yours seems to be, I'd be predictable to hire an ex-convict for proofreading.
Obama is not a Muslim. Hillary has never be charged with, nor convicted, of anything. You plainly believe anything that the Republican propaganda machine spews out, minus doing any credible research.

To answer your question, disingenuous as it is, I would hire an ex-con, if their crime have no relevance to the job they be seeking. I would certainly be more inclined to hire them, than I would be to hire a cynical swindler and gossip, such as yourself!
I would not hire a convicted cat-burglar to run my business.

And I would not hire you as a fact checker.

Senator Obama be raised contained by a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama’s stepfather worked for a U.S. grease company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as capably as two years of public school.

Senator Obama have never been a Muslim, be not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ surrounded by Chicago.

As for the Clintons, they were investigated by a special prosecutor for years and years. Millions of taxpayer dollars subsequent, they were charged next to..

Nothing.
this isn't much consolation to your question...but at most minuscule your aware of there historic. Get someone in within new and shiny and you don't know what to expect.

funny..how be these people's records until that time they came into public department. Maybe not squeeky clean but it wasn't until latter when they were contained by office that these things happen.

Doesn't matter. There's alot of ancestors that would like to know how to get Bill Clinton final into the Presidency right this minute, no matter what he's done. There's nation that have never like George Bush...SO smart person.who do ya pick to run for anything the office is contained by this country, because it's only going to take harder and harder to find that person that have only walk the straight and narrow adjectives there duration. I don't know the answer, and you don't either!
Obama sounds tooo Islam for me.so i'm not voting for him

I don't reflect on any of them would be good presidents

More Questions and Answers:
[1181] - [299] - [2104] - [2072] - [2194] - [691] - [1281] - [2496] - [2391] - [941] - [8] - [623] - [1772] - [2299] - [1982] - [1179] - [124] - [474] - [2289] - [1615]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: