Man, conservatives sure do want everyone to buy into the notion that the only answer to Medicare is to not have it. They go on and on about how Medicare is going to go bankrupt. But what is never mentioned is the actual end of that sentence "…under current spending levels."

Let’s remember that there are two sides to that coin. One way to deal with rising costs is to drastically cut benefits. But that doesn’t reduce the existence of the need for those benefits, it simply transfers the costs to the individual, who is on Medicare because they cannot afford private insurance. As in our current system with those who are uninsured, if those individuals can’t pay those costs, they get passed on to everyone else in the form of increased premiums and bloated medical charges (nothing like paying for a box of tissue during a hospital stay).

But the other way to deal with it– which is apparently unthinkable to Republicans–is to increase spending, in the form of tax increases. Yes, I said the dreaded phrase: tax increases. At the time that Medicare was enacted in 1965, the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Now it’s less than 40%. Of course there’s no money…we’re too busy allowing the uber-wealthy and corporations to skate on their share of the social fabric to create huge population-sized holes in the safety net.

Why don’t Republicans want to do the sensible thing and return tax rates to where they were when Medicare was enacted?

Technorati Tags: conservatives, corporations, current system, existence, marginal tax rate, medical charges, medicare, notion, phrase, population, premiums, private insurance, quot, republicans, safety net, sized holes, social fabric, tax increases, tax rates, top marginal tax rate

….after you get sued for building a faulty house for someone. The judge is in favour of the plaintiff, whose house you built. He rules that you must pay them ,000 to compensate for the cracks in the ceilings & walls and various other mishaps. You then, like a b*tch, file for bankruptcy. Don’t know how to phrase this, but: your claim for bankruptcy is accepted.
Replace the you with defendant. What prompts me to ask this is that the defendant walked out of court saying "You’re not getting one cent" to the plaintiff. Which, for comedic effect, i will add that he got punched in the face :L
Questions:
1) How does the plaintiff get his compensation, in civil law or whatever area of law? Are there alternative ways to gain compensation for this issue other than suing? Obviously the suing did not work out? Like for e.g. in criminal cases you can go to the Victims Compensation Tribunal if suing civilly does not work in your interests.
2) Does the defendant (in bankruptcy) have to sell all his assets and every cent of his future income goes to paying the defendant the compensation? Its only fair..
3) Does he get off scott free?

Thanks in advance Would appreciate it if any lawyers on yahoo could lend a hand in releasing me from confusion and unknowledgability.

Ps. The jurisdicton is NSW, Australia.

Technorati Tags: amp, assets, bankruptcy, ceilings, civil law, confusion, cracks, defendant, favour, free thanks, lawyers, mishaps, nsw australia, phrase, plaintiff, tch, thanks in advance, victims compensation tribunal, yahoo