4 ms·

It's disingenuous, patronizing and offensively cynical, but it's no defense. It reminds me of people naming bills the opposite of what they are meant to do. Th

It's disingenuous, patronizing and offensively cynical, but it's no defense. It reminds me of people naming bills the opposite of what they are meant to do. The "Patriot Act" was touted to among other things "defend freedom" and then enabled a surveillance state. That kind of thing. The hospitals will have to be sued into compliance by the Attorney General's office if it's important enough to Mr. Garland.

Buttons840 5y ago
Wonder if individuals can sue once they get their bills, on the grounds that they didn't realize that would be the price, and this was caused by the hospital's failure to comply with the law.
- nradov 5y ago
  No the federal law which requires price transparency didn't create any private right for individuals to sue on that basis. In principle that seems like a good idea but it would take a new law.
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    How so? If there is no price transparency, couldn’t they sue them for violation?
  - technofiend 5y ago
    That's too bad. I don't pretend to know anything about the law but it feels like this is one of those places where either thousands or tens of thousands of arbitration claims or a class action lawsuit would be effective.
ibejoeb 5y ago
Waiting for the "Freedom to Fly" act to drop any day now, which should prevent someone from flying without a pharma endorsement. It's like a perverse kind of poetry. --- People in here acting like it wouldn't be called that lol...
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Your freedom to spread infectious diseases ends where my lungs begin.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Quite a cynical take, but I understand this talking point after hearing it for the past 20 years. Many people would consider themselves freer if they were living under possible surveillance in a safe society, versus in a surveillance-free society with the constant fear of random terrorist attacks.
- halpert 5y ago
  What you say may be true, but that’s not a dichotomy we’re presented with.
- technofiend 5y ago
  There is room in the middle between those two extremes. Law enforcement had serious interagency rivalries, the intelligence community wasn't able to say when another WTC attack would happen after the previous one, and even after that one nobody was living in the fear of random terrorist attacks, even though we had plenty of domestic ones. My personal opinion is when confronted with their failure to accurately predict and prevent the 9/11 attack, law enforcement and intelligence both said well just give us all the money and unleash us. Our society is less safe now not because we decided to throw money at the problem, but because we decided to retaliate with force, which never deescalates the situation without a total victory. So now we have less freedom thanks to the surveillance state, absurd debt levels, and no progress in fully dismantling the terrorist network.

Buttons840 5y ago

Wonder if individuals can sue once they get their bills, on the grounds that they didn't realize that would be the price, and this was caused by the hospital's failure to comply with the law.

nradov 5y ago
No the federal law which requires price transparency didn't create any private right for individuals to sue on that basis. In principle that seems like a good idea but it would take a new law.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  How so? If there is no price transparency, couldn’t they sue them for violation?
- technofiend 5y ago
  That's too bad. I don't pretend to know anything about the law but it feels like this is one of those places where either thousands or tens of thousands of arbitration claims or a class action lawsuit would be effective.

ibejoeb 5y ago

Waiting for the "Freedom to Fly" act to drop any day now, which should prevent someone from flying without a pharma endorsement. It's like a perverse kind of poetry. --- People in here acting like it wouldn't be called that lol...

jjoonathan 5y ago
Your freedom to spread infectious diseases ends where my lungs begin.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Quite a cynical take, but I understand this talking point after hearing it for the past 20 years. Many people would consider themselves freer if they were living under possible surveillance in a safe society, versus in a surveillance-free society with the constant fear of random terrorist attacks.

halpert 5y ago
What you say may be true, but that’s not a dichotomy we’re presented with.
technofiend 5y ago
There is room in the middle between those two extremes. Law enforcement had serious interagency rivalries, the intelligence community wasn't able to say when another WTC attack would happen after the previous one, and even after that one nobody was living in the fear of random terrorist attacks, even though we had plenty of domestic ones. My personal opinion is when confronted with their failure to accurately predict and prevent the 9/11 attack, law enforcement and intelligence both said well just give us all the money and unleash us. Our society is less safe now not because we decided to throw money at the problem, but because we decided to retaliate with force, which never deescalates the situation without a total victory. So now we have less freedom thanks to the surveillance state, absurd debt levels, and no progress in fully dismantling the terrorist network.