On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, hk 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?

On 3/29/10 10:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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

I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to
the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system.
The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a
national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected
from anyone who reports an income?




I stated previously I see no purpose served by health insurance
companies, but we're stuck with them for a while longer.

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

On 3/29/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleSamdnTSXms9kAS3WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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

Because I found an organization up here to act as a middleman with me
and the hospital, instead of using his wife as he suggested last year. I
am paying my bill and his wife doesn't get a cut of any of that money.
You know how Harry operates, he skims off the middle, it's what he as a
retired union hack, does...

Scotty


Please explain how my wife would get a "cut" of "that money." Is this
another of your low-brain-output fantasies?


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

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Bob Rankin
wrote:

On Mar 28, 6:19*pm, hk 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?

Silly rabbit! Donchya know that the insurance company is the health
care provider?

hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleSamdnTSXms9kAS3WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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

Because I found an organization up here to act as a middleman with me
and the hospital, instead of using his wife as he suggested last year. I
am paying my bill and his wife doesn't get a cut of any of that money.
You know how Harry operates, he skims off the middle, it's what he as a
retired union hack, does...

Scotty


Please explain how my wife would get a "cut" of "that money." Is this
another of your low-brain-output fantasies?


Could she get a finders fee for referral to one of the many companies
that negotiate hospital fees for the uninsured? You bet.

On 3/29/2010 10:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleSamdnTSXms9kAS3WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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

Because I found an organization up here to act as a middleman with me
and the hospital, instead of using his wife as he suggested last year. I
am paying my bill and his wife doesn't get a cut of any of that money.
You know how Harry operates, he skims off the middle, it's what he as a
retired union hack, does...

Scotty


You idiot, I don't mind if my wife lowers your hospital bill, I just
object if you do it on your own. Moron.

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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

I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies
to
the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system.
The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for
it... a
national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums
colected
from anyone who reports an income?



Don,
Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you
and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk.

Your buddy,
Harry Krause

Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak?
The way I look at it...... Canadians & Americans are somewhat like
cousins...part of an extended family.
I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would.

On 3/29/2010 11:17 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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

I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies
to
the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system.
The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for
it... a
national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums
colected
from anyone who reports an income?



Don,
Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you
and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk.

Your buddy,
Harry Krause

Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak?
The way I look at it...... Canadians& Americans are somewhat like
cousins...part of an extended family.
I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would.




Don,
You are our ugly step sister, now go back to your room.

On 29/03/2010 8:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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

I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies to
the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system.
The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for it... a
national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums colected
from anyone who reports an income?

This company protected the people they service by preventing fraud.

Get over it. Or you pay for it and don't be a liberal loser looking for
other peoples money. Didn't see liberals out there providing the money
for the expensive operation. Yep, liberals just envy and greed for
other peoples money. Typical.

The blame for this is 100% on the parents. End of story. They do need
government to manage their lives but don't pass the costs and crap to
honest people. Make these people live right, and make them slaves if
they can't manage their lives better.


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

On 29/03/2010 9:17 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2010 10:08 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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

I agree that you should kick those parasitic health insurance companies
to
the curb and have a government supplied universal health care system.
The question is...what's the fairest& most efficient way to pay for
it... a
national sales tax..... an increase in income tax.... or premiums
colected
from anyone who reports an income?



Don,
Why do you care what the US does? You don't live here. Just between you
and me, you need to get your butt out of my butt, it is hard to walk.

Your buddy,
Harry Krause

Hi...Ditzy...or it it The Freak?
The way I look at it...... Canadians& Americans are somewhat like
cousins...part of an extended family.
I only want the best for you...as any compasonite family member would.

HK doesn't get it. Fact is most Canadians don't speak french and don't
hate the USA.

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