On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600, Canuck57
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'?

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


this is why we need socialized medicine

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.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?



After conception???? So, basically, the fetus has full human rights, but the
mother doesn't. Make sense... if you're an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:41:54 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

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



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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

well that's not really the question is it? why is this even necessary
to address when socialized medicine will solve the problem?

the free market has failures. they're called 'externalities'. there's
even a term for it.

but the right has a fundamentalist faith in an unregulated market, so
they're willing to sacrifice someone else's children...the market is
their god and they're willing to use child sacrifice to placate it.

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?


Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

You best watch yourself talking about health care takeover again. It's
been off the front burner for a week now and you don't want the dem
leadership to start more stories about republicans do you? That whole
fake spitting incident turned into a week of sillyness by the dems.

Scotty

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

On 3/29/10 7:02 AM, I am Tosk wrote:

You best watch yourself talking about health care takeover again. It's
been off the front burner for a week now and you don't want the dem
leadership to start more stories about republicans do you? That whole
fake spitting incident turned into a week of sillyness by the dems.

Scotty




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.


--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.

"hk" 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

On Mar 29, 7:02*am, I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...







"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
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?

Why should Blue Cross pay, when the insurance was taken out after
conception? *Why didn't the hospital perform the surgury gratis, under the
charter?

You best watch yourself talking about health care takeover again. It's
been off the front burner for a week now and you don't want the dem
leadership to start more stories about republicans do you? That whole
fake spitting incident turned into a week of sillyness by the dems.

Scotty

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

- Show quoted text -

Yes, we know it's all liberals acting like conservatives just to make
the conservatives look bad. Conservatives can do nothing bad, liberals
can do nothing good.....