Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.


Probably, no likely, you're just dumb.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...
What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result racked
up a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.

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

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

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

Eisboch


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

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





It's loaded with flaws. The "fixes" are a band aid. As rampant as
Medicare fraud is, this will be worse.


And you know this because you're one of the leading economists... no, you
aren't. You're just deciding, without facts, just winging it.


I probably should have given it more thought. I'll give you that.
But from what I've heard on the news, I don't think I'm far off.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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

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

Eisboch



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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

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

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

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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


"hk" wrote in message
om...

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

Eisboch



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


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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Eisboch wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble
So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch


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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

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

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

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch


Agreed. Nothing wrong with the status quo a few tweaks won't fix.
Modern technology can help.
I've been supporting Guatemalan orphans for $9.95 a month.
Hope to wipe out poverty there.
I saw the need on a TV commercial, went to a web site, and signed up.
Monthly charge to my credit card.
It's tax deductible.
There should be a privately operated web service where those needing
medical care can sign up, and then those of us fortunate enough to have
discretionary income can browse the internet site and choose who to
contribute to for their health care.
You could do a one-time contribution, or a monthly deal like I do with
the orphans. If money is tight due to boat payments or furrier
expenses, lay off on contributions until you're flush again.
But it's all voluntary.
Charity, not government.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

Eisboch


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

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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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

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

Eisboch



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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

Darn it. :)

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

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

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

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

Big difference between the two.

Eisboch






--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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

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

Eisboch



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

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

Darn it. :)

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

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

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

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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

Make sense?

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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



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

how about welfare for wall street?

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


I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want?

because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system
so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking
system go down in flames...like in 29.

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

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 30/03/2010 12:32 AM, Larry wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

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

Eisboch


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

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

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

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

Eisboch

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

Not sure I understand.

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

There are better plans.

First point, why not have it's funding go into a seperate pool so people
know the EXACT cost, why general revenue? Here is a hint, it isn't
about health care, it is about government revenue and skiming.

I could go on but it is a waste of time. Obama should have consulted
people who have lived under multiple plans for extended periods of time
for a good plan and anwer but like I said, it isn't about health care,
it is about government revenue.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.