|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, hk wrote:
Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company *denied coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the young boy. Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield of Texas. The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the heart’s great arteries. This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance company would not pay for. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the health care of the baby boy. What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born. Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy, to be told that their son was not going to be covered? This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about. Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants due to “pre-existing conditions.” - - What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off. Why didn't the doctor-doctor fly out to render her free medical services? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/29/10 10:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? I stated previously I see no purpose served by health insurance companies, but we're stuck with them for a while longer. -- Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Bob Rankin
wrote: On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, hk wrote: Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company *denied coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the young boy. Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield of Texas. The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the heart’s great arteries. This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance company would not pay for. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the health care of the baby boy. What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born. Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy, to be told that their son was not going to be covered? This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about. Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants due to “pre-existing conditions.” - - What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off. Why didn't the doctor-doctor fly out to render her free medical services? Silly rabbit! Donchya know that the insurance company is the health care provider? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In articleSamdnTSXms9kAS3WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com, says... 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 Because I found an organization up here to act as a middleman with me and the hospital, instead of using his wife as he suggested last year. I am paying my bill and his wife doesn't get a cut of any of that money. You know how Harry operates, he skims off the middle, it's what he as a retired union hack, does... Scotty Please explain how my wife would get a "cut" of "that money." Is this another of your low-brain-output fantasies? Could she get a finders fee for referral to one of the many companies that negotiate hospital fees for the uninsured? You bet. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/29/2010 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleSamdnTSXms9kAS3WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com, says... 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 Because I found an organization up here to act as a middleman with me and the hospital, instead of using his wife as he suggested last year. I am paying my bill and his wife doesn't get a cut of any of that money. You know how Harry operates, he skims off the middle, it's what he as a retired union hack, does... Scotty You idiot, I don't mind if my wife lowers your hospital bill, I just object if you do it on your own. Moron. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"hk" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? Don, Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk. Your buddy, Harry Krause Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak? The way I look at it...... Canadians & Americans are somewhat like cousins...part of an extended family. I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/29/2010 11:17 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? Don, Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk. Your buddy, Harry Krause Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak? The way I look at it...... Canadians& Americans are somewhat like cousins...part of an extended family. I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would. Don, You are our ugly step sister, now go back to your room. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 29/03/2010 8:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? This company protected the people they service by preventing fraud. Get over it. Or you pay for it and don't be a liberal loser looking for other peoples money. Didn't see liberals out there providing the money for the expensive operation. Yep, liberals just envy and greed for other peoples money. Typical. The blame for this is 100% on the parents. End of story. They do need government to manage their lives but don't pass the costs and crap to honest people. Make these people live right, and make them slaves if they can't manage their lives better. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 29/03/2010 9:17 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? Don, Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk. Your buddy, Harry Krause Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak? The way I look at it...... Canadians& Americans are somewhat like cousins...part of an extended family. I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would. HK doesn't get it. Fact is most Canadians don't speak french and don't hate the USA. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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.... -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Larry wrote:
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? I agree with this post. Jim - Laying out my priciples |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 29/03/2010 8:23 AM, Bob Rankin wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, wrote: Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the young boy. Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield of Texas. The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the heart’s great arteries. This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance company would not pay for. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the health care of the baby boy. What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born. Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy, to be told that their son was not going to be covered? This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about. Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants due to “pre-existing conditions.” - - What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off. Why didn't the doctor-doctor fly out to render her free medical services? Do you fly out to do a $100K oeprations for free? -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 29/03/2010 5:45 PM, Larry wrote:
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? And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when someone else can pay for it? As it is only about 1/3rd the people in the US work. On top of that 1 in 7 is government. Pretty hefty load on producers, and why the economy is crap. Too many sucking too hard. No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology as core to its design. Something Obama's are grossly short of. Just debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 29/03/2010 5:58 PM, Jim wrote:
Larry wrote: 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? I agree with this post. Jim - Laying out my priciples Good principles. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:34:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when someone else can pay for it? more assumptions that the middle class is lazy. the right thinks marie antoinette had it right. how'd that work out? As it is only about 1/3rd the people in the US work. On top of that 1 in 7 is government. Pretty hefty load on producers, and why the economy is crap. Too many sucking too hard. and the people who work? that doesn't include wall street...they're the parasites. but to the right wing, the rich are the blessed of god No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology as core to its design. Something Obama's are grossly short of. Just debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell. too bad no one told wall street about hard work. the right wing likes to lecture working people on how lazy they are and how great the rich are |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote:
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? how about welfare for wall street? you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious your abso-****in-lutely clueless |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:28:25 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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? yeah. i'm saying that those who raped the economy should pay its debts |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mar 29, 8:34*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 5:45 PM, Larry wrote: 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 news:tNOdnZS9ON_dDS3WnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@earthli nk.com... 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? And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when someone else can pay for it? *As it is only about 1/3rd the people in the US work. *On top of that 1 in 7 is government. *Pretty hefty load on producers, and why the economy is crap. *Too many sucking too hard. No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology as core to its design. *Something Obama's are grossly short of. *Just debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You guys are forgetting about the 30-50 million new voters, er um new letal citizens who will be eligable for free healthcare as soon as Obama gives them amnesty.. What do you all call it "comprhensive healthcare" with "comprehensive" meaning written by La Raza... Scotty |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/29/10 9:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:34 pm, wrote: On 29/03/2010 5:45 PM, Larry wrote: 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? And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when someone else can pay for it? As it is only about 1/3rd the people in the US work. On top of that 1 in 7 is government. Pretty hefty load on producers, and why the economy is crap. Too many sucking too hard. No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology as core to its design. Something Obama's are grossly short of. Just debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You guys are forgetting about the 30-50 million new voters, er um new letal citizens who will be eligable for free healthcare as soon as Obama gives them amnesty.. What do you all call it "comprhensive healthcare" with "comprehensive" meaning written by La Raza... Scotty Latinos work for a living. You don't. -- Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote: 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? how about welfare for wall street? you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious your abso-****in-lutely clueless I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 29/03/2010 8:08 AM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... 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 I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system. The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected from anyone who reports an income? This company protected the people they service by preventing fraud. Yeah, a gravely ill baby is fraud. Got it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Larry" 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 29/03/2010 5:58 PM, Jim wrote: Larry wrote: 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? I agree with this post. Jim - Laying out my priciples Good principles. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. Of racism and hatred? I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Larry" wrote in message
... hk wrote: 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. It's loaded with flaws. The "fixes" are a band aid. As rampant as Medicare fraud is, this will be worse. And you know this because you're one of the leading economists... no, you aren't. You're just deciding, without facts, just winging it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" 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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ... hk wrote: 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. It's loaded with flaws. The "fixes" are a band aid. As rampant as Medicare fraud is, this will be worse. And you know this because you're one of the leading economists... no, you aren't. You're just deciding, without facts, just winging it. I probably should have given it more thought. I'll give you that. But from what I've heard on the news, I don't think I'm far off. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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. 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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message om... 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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Eisboch wrote:
"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. 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 Agreed. Nothing wrong with the status quo a few tweaks won't fix. Modern technology can help. I've been supporting Guatemalan orphans for $9.95 a month. Hope to wipe out poverty there. I saw the need on a TV commercial, went to a web site, and signed up. Monthly charge to my credit card. It's tax deductible. There should be a privately operated web service where those needing medical care can sign up, and then those of us fortunate enough to have discretionary income can browse the internet site and choose who to contribute to for their health care. You could do a one-time contribution, or a monthly deal like I do with the orphans. If money is tight due to boat payments or furrier expenses, lay off on contributions until you're flush again. But it's all voluntary. Charity, not government. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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? Big difference between the two. Eisboch -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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. 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? Eisboch |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote: 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? how about welfare for wall street? you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious your abso-****in-lutely clueless I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want? because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking system go down in flames...like in 29. 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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 30/03/2010 12:32 AM, 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. There are better plans. First point, why not have it's funding go into a seperate pool so people know the EXACT cost, why general revenue? Here is a hint, it isn't about health care, it is about government revenue and skiming. I could go on but it is a waste of time. Obama should have consulted people who have lived under multiple plans for extended periods of time for a good plan and anwer but like I said, it isn't about health care, it is about government revenue. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com