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 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.





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

"hk" 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

On 29/03/2010 6:37 AM, 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.

Bet these people do not want to disclose their personal finances.

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