"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, 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.

this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the
rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the
union so they would never have allowed a baby to die....

oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****.


The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a
new born...

but we have the best medical care, right?


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."


the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die.

it wasnt rich

its parents were middle class so deserve nothing

And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die
because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after
birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy.



Yet these people's child was denied even the chance. This is the kind of
policy you support?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?



After conception???? So, basically, the fetus has full human rights, but the
mother doesn't. Make sense... if you're an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:55:01 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die
because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after
birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy.



Yet these people's child was denied even the chance. This is the kind of
policy you support?

The hospital did operate. The baby died anyway. As for insurance, the
parents didn't carry any on themselves, but they did carry insurance on
their other children. A dirty little secret, even for those with
insurance, a major illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in this
country. Hopefully, with this new legislation, that will change.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:39:15 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, hk
wrote:


THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a
new born...

but we have the best medical care, right?


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."


the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die.

it wasnt rich

its parents were middle class so deserve nothing

And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die
because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth
died of. And they had all the health care money could buy.

maybe maybe maybe.

that's all the right has. guesswork. handwaving. to save their
fundamentalist faith in their failed god: the free market

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:41:54 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

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



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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

well that's not really the question is it? why is this even necessary
to address when socialized medicine will solve the problem?

the free market has failures. they're called 'externalities'. there's
even a term for it.

but the right has a fundamentalist faith in an unregulated market, so
they're willing to sacrifice someone else's children...the market is
their god and they're willing to use child sacrifice to placate it.

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

You best watch yourself talking about health care takeover again. It's
been off the front burner for a week now and you don't want the dem
leadership to start more stories about republicans do you? That whole
fake spitting incident turned into a week of sillyness by the dems.

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

On 3/29/10 7:02 AM, I am Tosk wrote:

You best watch yourself talking about health care takeover again. It's
been off the front burner for a week now and you don't want the dem
leadership to start more stories about republicans do you? That whole
fake spitting incident turned into a week of sillyness by the dems.

Scotty




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.


--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.

On Mar 28, 7:25*pm, Peter Prick wrote:
In article ,
says...





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.

The hospital and doctors there are to be highly commended too.
Can't pay? *Then die.
I expect these stories to continue, and add impetus to accelerating
improvements to the flawed health care bill.

We can only hope you die of a horrible, UNcovered illness, troll.

On Mar 28, 9:06*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?

Why even argue with that disgrace of a human? "It's " Canadian, and
doesnt have to worry about " its " infant son or daughter suffering
that fate.