BoatBanter.com - Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/114733-bliues-deny-coverage-ill-newborn-baby.html)

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
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?

Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

I suspect they would. They do at work!!

Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand. At
some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on
liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are
getting ****ed at the tax rape going on.

Since you're not sure, why not wander into a bar and start hurling your
racial epithets. I'd be happy to contribute $100 toward your medical care.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"hk" wrote in message
...

The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the
direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and
businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way,
individuals and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost.

Good grief. I agree with you.

Eisboch

The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear?
Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A
cold and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for
every little sniffle. Then there are those to do.

So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't
comprehend doctors making decisions.

So basically, you would expect us to pay for your breast augmentation
because your doctor decided it would improve your self esteem and thought
it was medically necessary. Are you confusing prevention with early
intervention? It seems as if you are.

I'm glad you confirmed that you don't understand simple English.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
snipped for brevity

A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.

A good man can have a wealth of enemies.

It can be a requirement.

You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that.

You're just dumb and probably a stalker.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2010 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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.

So who's bitch/slave are you? Or are you a welfare sucking mama?

Your mom didn't do a very good job raising you did she. You should have your
mouth washed out with soap.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2010 12:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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.

Yep, an how come you use a computer? Write your representative for more
welfare?

Mind you, your verse above has some merit, stupid people make good
government sheep.

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

Mind you, you're an idiot. Oh wait, you have to have a mind to understand.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:05:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 30/03/2010 9:33 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
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?

Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

I suspect they would. They do at work!!

Something the HK, plume-de-dole and other freeloaders don't understand.
At some point working taxpayers will organize and pull the chain on
liberalism real hard. Might take a few years, but working people are
getting ****ed at the tax rape going on.

Freeloaders? Your head is so far up your ass, it's pathetic.

When did the "working taxpayers" pull the chain on Bush?

You live in some weird fantasy world where reality has no place.

Go back to Canada.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:01:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
.. .
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
snipped for brevity

A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.

A good man can have a wealth of enemies.

It can be a requirement.

You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that.

You're just dumb and probably a stalker.

He's got a supply of depends just in case he needs to go cross country
in a hurry.

While Jim is likely a stalker, he's clearly a buttsniffer.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:58:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

d

You are arguing semantecs. If DEMOCRAT congress didn't approve the TARP
it would have DIED. Fact is, democrats like large sums of unaccountable
cash.

as opposed to the GOP that spent triilion in iraq

how'd that work out?