|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, 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. this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the union so they would never have allowed a baby to die.... oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a new born... but we have the best medical care, right? 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.” the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die. it wasnt rich its parents were middle class so deserve nothing |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 28/03/2010 5:19 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. 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? Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up long before even getting knocked up. Just the kind that should have a 40% flat tax on their income unless they can show health care coverage as to prevent their attempt at abusing the system. Then perhaps your rates will not go up so quick. Too bad you couldn't charge the parents for wreckless welshing. If on the other hand Blue Cross was in force before conception, let them sue the asses off of Blue Cross. I would give them $100 million if this were the case. But I suspect it is not the case. This really smells like taking out a life insurance policy after death has occured. Some people still call it fraud. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 28/03/2010 5:19 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. 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? Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up long before even getting knocked up. Just the kind that should have a 40% flat tax on their income unless they can show health care coverage as to prevent their attempt at abusing the system. Then perhaps your rates will not go up so quick. Too bad you couldn't charge the parents for wreckless welshing. If on the other hand Blue Cross was in force before conception, let them sue the asses off of Blue Cross. I would give them $100 million if this were the case. But I suspect it is not the case. This really smells like taking out a life insurance policy after death has occured. Some people still call it fraud. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. you're really sick but even you shouldn't be denied care -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Canuck57" 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, 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. this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the union so they would never have allowed a baby to die.... oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a new born... but we have the best medical care, right? 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." the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die. it wasnt rich its parents were middle class so deserve nothing And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, 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. this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the union so they would never have allowed a baby to die.... oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****. The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition. THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a new born... but we have the best medical care, right? 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." the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die. it wasnt rich its parents were middle class so deserve nothing And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy. Yet these people's child was denied even the chance. This is the kind of policy you support? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:55:01 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:
And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy. Yet these people's child was denied even the chance. This is the kind of policy you support? The hospital did operate. The baby died anyway. As for insurance, the parents didn't carry any on themselves, but they did carry insurance on their other children. A dirty little secret, even for those with insurance, a major illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. Hopefully, with this new legislation, that will change. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:39:15 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, hk wrote: THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a new born... but we have the best medical care, right? 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." the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die. it wasnt rich its parents were middle class so deserve nothing And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy. maybe maybe maybe. that's all the right has. guesswork. handwaving. to save their fundamentalist faith in their failed god: the free market |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mar 28, 7:25*pm, Peter Prick wrote:
In article , says... 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. The hospital and doctors there are to be highly commended too. Can't pay? *Then die. I expect these stories to continue, and add impetus to accelerating improvements to the flawed health care bill. We can only hope you die of a horrible, UNcovered illness, troll. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mar 28, 9:06*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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 even argue with that disgrace of a human? "It's " Canadian, and doesnt have to worry about " its " infant son or daughter suffering that fate. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 3/29/10 8:12 AM, BAR wrote:
In inet, says... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:55:01 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote: And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth died of. And they had all the health care money could buy. Yet these people's child was denied even the chance. This is the kind of policy you support? The hospital did operate. The baby died anyway. As for insurance, the parents didn't carry any on themselves, but they did carry insurance on their other children. A dirty little secret, even for those with insurance, a major illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. Hopefully, with this new legislation, that will change. How do you carry insurance on children without having insurance on the parents? A co-worker is losing his house and will most likely go bankrupt. Why, in his words, because he isn't getting a raise this year. It couldn't be due to the fact that he bought too big of a house with an interest only mortgage. This is a guy who is supposedly highly educated. "You can't fix stupid." --Ron White. Your anecdote has nothing to do with the sick baby, brain sturgeon. It is health care bills, not the lack of a raise, that is the cause of a huge number of bankruptcies. -- 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
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. -- 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 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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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? Liberals are losers. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On 28/03/2010 7:25 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 28/03/2010 5:19 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. 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? Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up long before even getting knocked up. Just the kind that should have a 40% flat tax on their income unless they can show health care coverage as to prevent their attempt at abusing the system. Then perhaps your rates will not go up so quick. Too bad you couldn't charge the parents for wreckless welshing. If on the other hand Blue Cross was in force before conception, let them sue the asses off of Blue Cross. I would give them $100 million if this were the case. But I suspect it is not the case. This really smells like taking out a life insurance policy after death has occured. Some people still call it fraud. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. you're really sick but even you shouldn't be denied care You could also look at it as Obama has trillions for banks, bailouts but nothing for the babies. LMAO. Been in office for 15 months and nothing has changed. Keep worship your free lunch and Obama, T'il debt do you part... -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
BAR wrote:
In article , says... "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? No you are seeing the real goals of left. It is not equaling the playing field, it is tilting the playing field to their advantage. Scott will not be gracious enough to get on bended knee and thank the Democrat for their omniscience to grant the people such a great entitlement. Therefore, Scott must be silence, shunned and pushed into a corner. Sometimes I wonder about you Richard. Sure, you're one to "wonder" about Dick. Dick is successful, and a gentleman. You are neither. So who cares what you "wonder" about. Dick is generous and charitable, and you ain't. Look, Scotty doesn't want health care for all. Why? Since he's a known deadbeat for medical bills, he wouldn't be paying for any of it. In fact, it would pay for his health care. So what's left to justify his resistance to the idea of everybody being able to afford decent health care? He's either a mean sumbitch or just hates anything Dems do, even if it prevents the death of innocent babies. Which puts him back to mean sumbitch. Take your pick of mean sumbitch or mean sumbitch. What you can add to that is he is a medical deadbeat telling others what's good for him should be good for them. Just welsh on your medical bills, and have those with insurance take care of it. Because I'm the great political philosopher Scotty. You get that? It's simple and easy to understand. Made it that way for you. Jim - I don't like libs, and I don't like mean sumbitches or deadbeats. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, 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. Who refused to treat the baby? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
Jim wrote:
BAR wrote: In article , says... "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? No you are seeing the real goals of left. It is not equaling the playing field, it is tilting the playing field to their advantage. Scott will not be gracious enough to get on bended knee and thank the Democrat for their omniscience to grant the people such a great entitlement. Therefore, Scott must be silence, shunned and pushed into a corner. Sometimes I wonder about you Richard. Sure, you're one to "wonder" about Dick. Dick is successful, and a gentleman. You are neither. So who cares what you "wonder" about. Dick is generous and charitable, and you ain't. Look, Scotty doesn't want health care for all. Why? Since he's a known deadbeat for medical bills, he wouldn't be paying for any of it. In fact, it would pay for his health care. So what's left to justify his resistance to the idea of everybody being able to afford decent health care? He's either a mean sumbitch or just hates anything Dems do, even if it prevents the death of innocent babies. Which puts him back to mean sumbitch. Take your pick of mean sumbitch or mean sumbitch. What you can add to that is he is a medical deadbeat telling others what's good for him should be good for them. Just welsh on your medical bills, and have those with insurance take care of it. Because I'm the great political philosopher Scotty. You get that? It's simple and easy to understand. Made it that way for you. Jim - I don't like libs, and I don't like mean sumbitches or deadbeats. Tom, You seem to be the only one spoofing at the moment. Are you encouraging others to join in the fun? Or do you feel that you have exclusive rights to the practice because you were the pioneer and original spoofer. Scotty take note: Tom may be using someone elses name but he is speaking from the heart. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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..... |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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 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? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
In article bd4534db-bc7b-4e97-ac4b-
, says... 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..... And you can't/won't answer a simple question if you are not going to like the answer because, every dem is good, every repub is bad.. In case you missed/ducked my question for the last two days, here it is again, if reference to the fake spitting incident the day health care takeover was passed.. Is there proof that this is republicans doing this, or in your intolerant, bigoted words, "teabagger sorts"? By your own bar, I am looking for criminal convictions and nothing less. Scotty -- For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
In article ,
says... "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 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 -- For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com