Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 29/03/2010 7:53 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

Agreed, it will not be long before costs go right out of control. But
given Obama's current debt-spending habbits, he is just like a common
debtor with a new credit card.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, 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

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

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

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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?



--
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 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.




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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

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

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

couldnt have said it better myself

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

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

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


This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading.

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

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

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

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

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

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

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

even when it's wrong


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

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

or is that freeloading, too?


Read my original uncut post again you knee jerk fool.

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

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

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


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


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

Should have turned over the parents like turnips.


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

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

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

Fix the parenting issue first.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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...

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.


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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

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


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, 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

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

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

Scotty

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



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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

Eisboch


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

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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400,
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

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

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


Like you? TARP wasn't "created" by Congress. It was passed by Congress. It
was created by Treasury (i.e., Paulson) and was promoted to Congress as
make-or-break funding to stabilize the economy, which, after some revisions
did as advertised.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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


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

You are ambulatory, right?


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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

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

Eisboch



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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

Darn it. :)

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

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

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

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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

Do you want to rethink your comment?


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

Make sense?

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


--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

wrote in message
...

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

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

Eisboch



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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

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

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

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Eisboch,

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


Oh be quiet. The adults are speaking.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

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

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

couldnt have said it better myself

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

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

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


This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading.

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

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

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

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

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

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

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

even when it's wrong


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

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

or is that freeloading, too?


Read my original uncut post again you knee jerk fool.

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

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

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


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


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

Should have turned over the parents like turnips.


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

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

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

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

Fix the parenting issue first.

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

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

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

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

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

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

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

yep. kill the kid

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

this is why we need socialized medicine

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Here's your logic:

Why should we go to school?

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

Therefore, we shouldn't go to school.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

In article ,
says...


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

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

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

as long as the rich are protected.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

In ,
says...


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

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

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

as long as the rich are protected.

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


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


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

Eisboch


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

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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...


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


They say never argue with somebody who buys ink by the ton.
Same goes for arguing with a motormouth.
You won't beat this guy down.
Look at Carl Rove. Still won't shut up.
Ever hear about the leg bone being connected to the hip bone?
This is a case of the mouth being connected to the stupid gland.
That gland never dies until its owner leave this troubled earth.
Probably why the ancients took to cutting out tongues.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, 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


Those are documented "stock purchases". Apples and Oranges.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Canuck57 wrote:
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.
You're responding to a ghost. I have a lousy spoofer.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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


jps wrote:

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


wrote in message
m...

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

Eisboch



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


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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:35:16 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



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.

he keeps saying this. but he offers no proof

medicare is govt spending. skimming? none.

but, apparently if it's on talk radio, he'll believe it


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

he did. he consulted the american people. and we've had it with our
inefficient, expensive healthcare

if socialize medicine is so bad

why is canada's life expectancy higher than the US?

betcha he doesn't answer!

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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


jps wrote:

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


wrote in message
m...

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

Eisboch



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


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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Good description. Seems the enemies of Krause got saddled with
spoofers. Wonder why that is.

Jim - Knows lib dirty tricks when he sees 'em.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Jim wrote:
Larry wrote:
jps wrote:

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


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Good description. Seems the enemies of Krause got saddled with
spoofers. Wonder why that is.

Jim - Knows lib dirty tricks when he sees 'em.

Thanks for your concern Tommy. You can go out to the barn and choke on
one of your steeenkin ceegars now.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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



The banking system would not have failed. Some brokerage houses would have.
Big F'n deal! Someone else would have taken over the pieces. Citigroup
made $3billion profit in the first quarter, record profits, during a
recession. Mostly because they get all the money they want from the Fed for
0.25% and buy T bills paying 3.5%. Buying the T-bills hides the Governments
debt, and gives the Fed more money to loan at 0.25%. Helps only Citigroup
and the other "banks" doing the same thing. Plus hiding government wasteful
spending. The money is flowing to those rich folks. And it is costing you
and I money. Lots of money. The devaluing of the dollar by government
excess spending is a tax on all of us. Even those of us making less than
$250k. Even the guy on welfare. Happy with the Democrat controlled
Congress who gave us TARP? TARP with no controls. Was not George Bush who
gave us TARP. Was Congress. Bush screwed up and signed the bill, but the
Executive branch can only spend money Congress allocates. Go take a Civics
class, and learn about our form of govenment.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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


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

You are ambulatory, right?




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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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



The banking system would not have failed. Some brokerage houses would
have. Big F'n deal! Someone else would have taken over the pieces.
Citigroup made $3billion profit in the first quarter, record profits,
during a recession. Mostly because they get all the money they want from
the Fed for 0.25% and buy T bills paying 3.5%. Buying the T-bills hides
the Governments debt, and gives the Fed more money to loan at 0.25%.
Helps only Citigroup and the other "banks" doing the same thing. Plus
hiding government wasteful spending. The money is flowing to those rich
folks. And it is costing you and I money. Lots of money. The devaluing
of the dollar by government excess spending is a tax on all of us. Even
those of us making less than $250k. Even the guy on welfare. Happy with
the Democrat controlled Congress who gave us TARP? TARP with no controls.
Was not George Bush who gave us TARP. Was Congress. Bush screwed up and
signed the bill, but the Executive branch can only spend money Congress
allocates. Go take a Civics class, and learn about our form of govenment.

According to you... that has about as much credibility as listening for a
truthful statement from Karl Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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


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

You are ambulatory, right?




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

You don't give working class people much credit. They're good people who can
smell hypocrisy a mile away.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:43:50 -0500, Peter Prick
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

Eisboch


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

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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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

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

Peter, I was asking Richard what he meant by not subsidizing a health
insurance program.

My aim was true but some jerk claimed I was bitching. I think he
should start reading for content and, otherwise STFU.

I don't really give a **** if you're disappointed but perhaps you
should be more accurately so.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:51:04 -0400, Larry wrote:

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


jps wrote:

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


wrote in message
m...

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

Eisboch



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


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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

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

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


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Maybe you should consider augmenting your screen name so we can tell
the difference. Sure you don't have MPD?

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:27:27 -0500, Larry wrote:

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.

What a wonderful thought. Must be idylic there in fantasy land.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:24:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

WTF is the difference between that and what we have now? Emergency
rooms become the doctors office at twice or three times the rate of
normal care in a doctor's office.

Are you into inefficiency?

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

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

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

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

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


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

You are ambulatory, right?




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

That would depend on the location of the bar.
Up north a normal reaction would be to invite him outside to kick his
ass or just toss him out the door.
Down south the patrons would nod in agreement with him, then try to
trade him food stamps, government cheese, and maybe a crumpled illegible
check for some cash. Then kick his ass right there at the bar.
That's just a general rule.
Doesn't matter anyway. People like him just don't go into "working
class" bars.
Real targets for an ass kicking.
I'm pretty easy going myself, but I'd be after him before I finished my
first beer.
He's an insult to any working man, and can only speak freely in places
like this. Sad, but he's made his own bed.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:24:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

WTF is the difference between that and what we have now? Emergency
rooms become the doctors office at twice or three times the rate of
normal care in a doctor's office.

Are you into inefficiency?

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.
I don't claim to be a health insurance expert, nor do I have all the
answers.
However, I *do* have some experience in the administration of health care
plans in a company and I have some experience in the application of health
insurance as it pertains to a serious health issue.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the health insurance problem started
with the demise of affordable, Major Medical health insurance (catastrophic
insurance) that started in the late 1970's and early 1980's. When HMO,
then PTO and other similar plans became the standard in the industry, the
cost of medical insurance began it's upward spiral.

It now seems that a medical insurance plan styled like an HMO and subsidized
by taxpayers for those who can't afford it is expected to be a right. I
have no problem with insurance or subsidized care/service for life
threatening or disabling conditions. I *do* have a problem with subsidized
HMO type programs covering everything under the sun, including elective or
for convenience surgery, convenience abortions (meaning non-life
threatening) etc.

When it comes to basic health care, everyone should have it and those who
can't afford it should be helped. When it comes to other, elective or
unnecessary care, surgery, etc, I think you should pay for it and not have
it paid for by others.

Really very simple.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Mar 31, 5:51*am, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are correct, Prick *or whoever you are.


LOL!

sorry, sometimes it's hard to make no comment in a non-boating
thread...

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.
I don't claim to be a health insurance expert, nor do I have all the
answers.
However, I *do* have some experience in the administration of health care
plans in a company and I have some experience in the application of health
insurance as it pertains to a serious health issue.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the health insurance problem started
with the demise of affordable, Major Medical health insurance (catastrophic
insurance) that started in the late 1970's and early 1980's. When HMO,
then PTO and other similar plans became the standard in the industry, the
cost of medical insurance began it's upward spiral.

It now seems that a medical insurance plan styled like an HMO and subsidized
by taxpayers for those who can't afford it is expected to be a right. I
have no problem with insurance or subsidized care/service for life
threatening or disabling conditions. I *do* have a problem with subsidized
HMO type programs covering everything under the sun, including elective or
for convenience surgery, convenience abortions (meaning non-life
threatening) etc.

When it comes to basic health care, everyone should have it and those who
can't afford it should be helped. When it comes to other, elective or
unnecessary care, surgery, etc, I think you should pay for it and not have
it paid for by others.

Really very simple.

Eisboch

Nothing is simple when it is clouded by lies.
I have not seen or heard anything suggesting that this bill will make
"everything under the sun" available.
But I have heard that catching medical conditions early and treating
them is much cheaper than later amputations, prosthetics, dialysis,
transplants, etc, the latter of which you are implying is the best
course, given your frequent use of "life threatening."
You may disagree with that. But you won't find a doctor to agree with
you.
Simple as that.