Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

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

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

couldnt have said it better myself

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

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

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


This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading.

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

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

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

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

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

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

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

even when it's wrong


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

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

or is that freeloading, too?


Read my original uncut post again you knee jerk fool.

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

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

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


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


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

Should have turned over the parents like turnips.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

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

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

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

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

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

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

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

yep. kill the kid

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

this is why we need socialized medicine

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

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

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


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


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


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

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




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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Larry wrote:
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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

I agree with this post.

Jim - Laying out my priciples

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 29/03/2010 7:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400,
wrote:

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

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

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

Who refused to treat the baby?

Probably the hospital and doctors. Pretty expensive operation to do
right. Probably as intensive as a heart transplant actually, only
rejection is much less likely.

All Blue Cross did was say, you were not covered as you didn't
subscribe. Until of course the diagnosis was in, which is fraud on the
parents part. Hell, they could have gone to any insurance company. Or
like mexician illegals, hop the fence for some free health care.

And people wonder why their rates are going up. The reason is simple,
too many freeloaders.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 29/03/2010 8:23 AM, Bob Rankin wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, wrote:
Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

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

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

Why didn't the doctor-doctor fly out to render her free medical
services?

Do you fly out to do a $100K oeprations for free?

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 29/03/2010 5:45 PM, Larry wrote:
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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

And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when
someone else can pay for it? As it is only about 1/3rd the people in
the US work. On top of that 1 in 7 is government. Pretty hefty load on
producers, and why the economy is crap. Too many sucking too hard.

No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology
as core to its design. Something Obama's are grossly short of. Just
debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 29/03/2010 5:58 PM, Jim wrote:
Larry wrote:
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

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


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

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

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

Eisboch



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

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



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

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

Eisboch



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



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

I agree with this post.

Jim - Laying out my priciples

Good principles.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:34:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



And more and more will join "free" health care as hey why work when
someone else can pay for it?

more assumptions that the middle class is lazy. the right thinks marie
antoinette had it right.

how'd that work out?


As it is only about 1/3rd the people in
the US work. On top of that 1 in 7 is government. Pretty hefty load on
producers, and why the economy is crap. Too many sucking too hard.

and the people who work?

that doesn't include wall street...they're the parasites. but to the
right wing, the rich are the blessed of god

No solution will truly work unless it includes motivation and sociology
as core to its design. Something Obama's are grossly short of. Just
debt jive taking fraudsters paving the road to hell.

too bad no one told wall street about hard work. the right wing likes
to lecture working people on how lazy they are and how great the rich
are

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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



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

how about welfare for wall street?

you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious
your abso-****in-lutely clueless

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:28:25 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .

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

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


yeah. i'm saying that those who raped the economy should pay its debts