Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in
this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14 kids
and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


So, people who don't live up to your standards are rats. Lovely. Fortunately
for us, you're not part of this great country.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14
kids and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.


I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class
neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your
demise in whatever is your local newspaper.

You are ambulatory, right?


That would be a mistake. He's get smacked around and sent home.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch



It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't
answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms.
Plume.

Darn it. :)

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that
cannot when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical
care. I repeat. Medical care.

Perhaps there is a moral requirement, but since it can't be legislated,
it ends up being an individual choice. The health of the country (medical
and fiscal) should not be dependent upon the whims of a few.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

I do support programs that ensure the health of the country, as I stated
just above. To do less, is not moral in my opinion. There's no other way
to ensure our health, at least nothing I know of. Perhaps you can suggest
something?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Well, since I believe we all have a moral responsibility to help our
fellow man to the degree we can, I have no problem with a tax program that
provides for a fund intended to be paid directly to hospitals for
services rendered for life threatening conditions. No government or
private insurance companies involved.

Umm... who's going to administer the program? It's going to have to be a
gov't body of some sort. A tax program = gov't.

Do you want to rethink your comment?


The difference in what I am proposing is that the fund provided by taxes
pays for the medical care given in these situations. It does *not* pay
for insurance policy premiums. That's the problem with our existing
system ... insurance companies ripping off the insured with big profits
derived from the premium payments and a reluctance to pay out when
required. A government run version of an insurance company would simply
create another huge bureaucracy consisting of tens of thousands new
government employees. They all have to be paid per federal guidelines from
the tax dollars. Very inefficient use of tax money intended to provide
necessary medical care to those who can't afford it or the insurance to
provide for it.

Make sense?

On some level, sure. It makes sense. But on a practical level, it would
difficult to administer. Who's going to administer the program? How do the
funds get dispersed? How do you know that there isn't fraud? Don't get me
wrong... I'm all for doing away with the insurance companies involved in
medical claims. They're just the middleman and they take a huge cut. The
problem is that some entity has to do the work. If you don't like insurance
companies, then the gov't has to do it. Medicare is an example. There's all
kinds of waste/fraud in that system. It has funding problems. The former can
be reduced with increasing oversight (but I believe the Republicans recently
voted against having undercover agents). The latter involves reducing
benefits for those who can afford to pay in other ways, and finding other
funding solutions (perhaps an increase in taxes - there's no free lunch).


--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2010 12:08 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch



It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to
pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms. Plume.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with
the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that cannot
when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical care.
I
repeat. Medical care.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free
health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

Used to be people were grateful for charity, today they think it is a
right and will spit in your face with envy in their hearts when you help.
Many are not deseriving of the charity. They want handouts not hand ups,
unwilling to learn what it takes to be productive they just continue their
loser ways.


Oh be quiet. The adults are speaking.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 10:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 12:26 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 7:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600,
wrote:

On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health
care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know,
subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it
freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing
to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading.
Which
this case highlights perfectly.

couldnt have said it better myself

he just said he wants dead babies to punish freeloading parents.

Did you do further research? Bet not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and
father as money there had different priorities. Further, they
sought
insurance AFTER they needed it.

uh...so what? so the baby dies. just punishment, eh? more dead
middle
class kids...that's what the middle class deserves


This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading.

and if we'd had universal healthcare like in more advanced countries
the baby would have lived

but you dont care. you're right wing. if children die, so what? at
least the rich stay rich and THEIR children will live
Playing the sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when
they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

kill 'em. hell, why not just shoot the babies of the poor...gas
'em...

and if it jacks the rates for the rest of us...then why doesn't this
happen in other countries?

you right wingers have no answer for this, do you? other countries
have better healthcare, universal, at lower cost

BUT...because it's socialized, you'd rather have children die than
admit your fundamentalist faith in the free market HAS to be right

even when it's wrong


Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they
think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.

should we at least pay for coffins to bury dead children? would the
right wing support THAT?

or is that freeloading, too?


Read my original uncut post again you knee jerk fool.

No way Blue Cross should have to pay. And no way the hospital should
be
putting out $50,000+++ operations to vagrants.

Get the government to pay for it then sell off the parents as slaves
to
settle the debt. Their negligence is the cause. Simple as that.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


Yeah, just let them die. You're a great humanitarian.


Hell, it was you liberals who let the baby die.

Should have turned over the parents like turnips.


That's right. The "liberals" are evil, bad people. That's why right wing
nuts such as yourself support insurance companies over actual people.

Yep. What these parents, if you can call them that, tried was fraud.

Assuming that's true, which I doubt, that means all liberals are evil. Yes.
We know you're an idiot.

When you leftist losers come up with a plan that does not screw other
people for the dysfunction of others, let me know, I would be interested.
As at some point, we would all like to subscribe for insurance in just the
month we need it. But the reality isn't so for good reason.

Fix the parenting issue first.

How can we when there are people like you with the potential to reproduce???

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 10:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 12:28 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 7:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health
care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know,
subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it
freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing
to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading.
Which
this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet
not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and
father
as
money there had different priorities. Further, they sought
insurance
AFTER they needed it.

This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the
sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when
they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'?
and
what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING

but to the right...let him DIE...

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being
paying
up
long before even getting knocked up.

yep. kill the kid

Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors
court.
Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it
legally,
they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type of
abuse.

this is why we need socialized medicine

In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of
parents
that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time
as
they
think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it.

Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home
economics.
Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so they pay
for
their needs, including heath care.

Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they
think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


No... you hate them. You hate anyone who isn't like you.


You could have offered to pay for it. How come you didn't? Or is
socialism OK as long as other people pay for it?


You're a moron. I offer to pay more taxes. That's how our system works.
Even
on this newsgroup, I offered to pay for John's utility bill. He wasn't
willing to meet me even 1/4 of the way to getting it done.

How does unemployed offer more taxes? Hell, you could have wired these
welshers $100K for the operation. But yu didn't, because you want other
peoples moneys....


?? What are you ranting about? What does unemployment have to do with a
baby's welfare? Certainly, you're in no position to help, being close to
being homeless?

You didn't answer the question, how come you didn't help them with your
money? I am sure you could contact the hospial and setup a fund with your
money...

You want me to send someone $100K??? Are you just pretending to be dumber
than a stump?

Because in the end this is about extorting others doing it right as you
have no intention of paying for your mouth. Liberalism is fine as long as
someone else is paying for it. Trouble is, you yourself are unwilling as
nothing stops you from seeking out such situations and putting your own
money on the line.

Trouble is, you are a screwed up loser.. probably no money and just a
hanger. So who is your meal ticket? Better treat them real good as they
are what keeps you from the street.

Here's your logic:

Why should we go to school?

School is about acquiring knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Corruption is a crime.
Crime doesn't pay.

Therefore, we shouldn't go to school.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:41:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 30/03/2010 4:14 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"


that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why
people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water
for them. protect the rich

You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama
was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in
office.

as recommended by rich frat boy george bush. and you're missing the
point...no surprise, given you're a right winger

the right wing is, AGAIN, protecting the banks and the rich


Bailouts should have never occured. They are all bad be it Bush or
Obama. Just corruption.

wrong. you have no solution. a big mouth. a racist attitude.

no solution. typical right winger. always bitching. no solutions

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:16:31 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama
was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in
office.

Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact..

typical right winger. all bitching. no solutions. 25% unemployment?
great. collapse of the economic system? fantastic

as long as the rich are protected.

and TARP was started under bush...he needed to bail out his rich
buddies.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/30/10 5:30 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:16:31 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


You seem to forget it was democrat congress that created TARP and Obama
was all for it. In fact, he spent the his share (and then some) once in
office.

Funny how the liars here and in the media forget that fact..

typical right winger. all bitching. no solutions. 25% unemployment?
great. collapse of the economic system? fantastic

as long as the rich are protected.

and TARP was started under bush...he needed to bail out his rich
buddies.


It's theater of the absurd when SnottyScottyTosk whines in on these
posts, since he is unemployed and unemployable, as is, I suspect, Canuck.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, Larry wrote:

jps wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch


No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the
insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree
necessary.

The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health
insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported) health
care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health
insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or government,
into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a good
thing.

A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those who
can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is cheaper to pay
the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them, which I
doubt.)

Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are fortunate
enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral
obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or increased
insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to subsidize
health *insurance* programs is another matter.

Eisboch

Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those
who need subsidized care get it through some other method?

Not sure I understand.

The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you
bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing.

What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a
spasmotic knee?

It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or
bitch.

Clarify what? I didn't see a "detailed plan" anywhere, nor any
"bitching."
You gentlemen seem more interested in one-upmanship than real
discussion.
Very disappointing.