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