In article ,
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.

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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.