Teabaggers laugh at women who's daughter they are responsible for killing

[apple0154]

with all the liberal government programs that have been created with the dozens of hoops to jump through and red tape to cut through (read that as 'numerous qualifications to fulfill before entitlement') you really have to ask that question???????

The only reason I ask that question is people go on and on about how she could have free medical as if she merely had to walk into a government office with a pregnancy test and pick up a card.

I'm sure there are qualifications to meet and, no doubt, money to be exchanged but some folks brush over that and say she could have had a card.

We don't know if she could have had a card as far as meeting expectations, affording one, etc. That's my point and rather than them stating such they make it sound like the woman was too lazy to drop by and pick up a free one.

 

[Damocles]

Great. Then if the cards are freely given what possible difference can it make whether or not a woman has one? At 7 months it is obvious she is pregnant. If the card is free and the program is structured to insure medical care for pregnant women why would the hospital not accept her and she could get the card later and the program would reimburse the hospital?

Again, she is pregnant. She is entitled to medical care. What makes possessing the card necessary unless there is some fee attached to it?

Clearly, had she taken the steps to get the coverage, she would supposedly be alive today. At least according to the tear soaked audience that is how it was portrayed.

What makes it necessary? It shows that she is covered, just like you with your card in your car and the one that you will have to carry if this fiasco called 'reform' passes. She chose not to have coverage that was freely available. It is foolish to use something like this as an example of a need for still more government programs.

She failed herself and I am supposed to suddenly support bad legislation that doesn't fix the cost first because her momma cried. Loads of people are sad when their relatives do stupid things that kill them, it doesn't mean we need legislation to cover the exact same thing that was already covered.

At least we got you to a point where you actually comprehend that the woman had available coverage. Now let's see if you can stop trying to argue that stupid straw man.

 

[Damocles]

The only reason I ask that question is people go on and on about how she could have free medical as if she merely had to walk into a government office with a pregnancy test and pick up a card.

I'm sure there are qualifications to meet and, no doubt, money to be exchanged but some folks brush over that and say she could have had a card.

We don't know if she could have had a card as far as meeting expectations, affording one, etc. That's my point and rather than them stating such they make it sound like the woman was too lazy to drop by and pick up a free one.

If she didn't meet the requirements for the aid then she chose not to have coverage that she could afford, in either matter this legislation wouldn't provide something that wasn't already available to her.

It's like you are too stupid to comprehend, the woman chose for whatever reason to go uncovered when there was coverage available to her, and now her family wants us to forget the craptacularity of legislation because they make tear tracks in their makeup.

 

[apple0154]

Clearly, had she taken the steps to get the coverage, she would supposedly be alive today. At least according to the tear soaked audience that is how it was portrayed.

What makes it necessary? It shows that she is covered, just like you with your card in your car and the one that you will have to carry if this fiasco called 'reform' passes. She chose not to have coverage that was freely available. It is foolish to use something like this as an example of a need for still more government programs.

She failed herself and I am supposed to suddenly support bad legislation that doesn't fix the cost first because her momma cried. Loads of people are sad when their relatives do stupid things that kill them, it doesn't mean we need legislation to cover the exact same thing that was already covered.

At least we got you to a point where you actually comprehend that the woman had available coverage. Now let's see if you can stop trying to argue that stupid straw man.

Of course. A woman and fetus die because the woman didn't follow proper procedures for medical coverage and it's all a straw man argument for better medical services.

Of course, everyone knows pregnant women have medical coverage but an obviously, 7-month pregnant women dies along with her fetus because she didn't follow procedures. Why would I think a change is necessary? Silly me.

 

[apple0154]

If she didn't meet the requirements for the aid then she chose not to have coverage that she could afford, in either matter this legislation wouldn't provide something that wasn't already available to her.

It's like you are too stupid to comprehend, the woman chose for whatever reason to go uncovered when there was coverage available to her, and now her family wants us to forget the craptacularity of legislation because they make tear tracks in their makeup.

The stupidity is on your part. You still don't understand why a universal plan is necessary. You still don't understand that all the exclusions and exceptions and other crap being forced into the bill in order to pass it is going to result in other disasters.

You don't know if she had the money for insurance. You have no idea if she forgot or put it off because she was busy.

The point is it didn't have to happen. A young, pregnant woman dies along with her fetus and people like you make asinine statements about a universal plan requiring a retired man to wait for a hip operation delaying his return to the golf course. Or waiting in line for a blood test. Or some other inconsequential incident attempting to show a universal plan is some devious, government take-over.

Mother of God, what are you people thinking?

 

[Damocles]

Of course. A woman and fetus die because the woman didn't follow proper procedures for medical coverage and it's all a straw man argument for better medical services.

Of course, everyone knows pregnant women have medical coverage but an obviously, 7-month pregnant women dies along with her fetus because she didn't follow procedures. Why would I think a change is necessary? Silly me.

She made a choice, exercised her freedoms in a way that had a risk.

And your straw man was attempting to say it was unavailable then later pretending you didn't even know it could have possibly been a choice. It took how many posts just to get you to "understand" that she chose not to be covered? It isn't like this farcical 'reform' would have made something available to her that wasn't. (It's like hearing somebody argue that everybody needs a Kia when they already own a Taurus). At least we finally got you to admit that she had available coverage that many people use regularly.

Yeah "silly" people take advantage of the sorrow of others because they expect thinking people to suddenly become irrational and stupid when somebody cries. You are so "silly"...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

While it's nice to know you're not running around screaming a 7 month old fetus is a human being it is unsettling to also know you don't believe it should be considered when a pregnant woman asks for help.

The only "screaming" that's being done; is by you, when you logic is challanged.

I never said that it wasn't a human being, I was though questioning your concern over something that you don't find worthy of concern to begin with.

Nice to see that you've totally ignored the FACTS and have instead decided to absolve the mother of any responsibility.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Great. Then if the cards are freely given what possible difference can it make whether or not a woman has one? At 7 months it is obvious she is pregnant. If the card is free and the program is structured to insure medical care for pregnant women why would the hospital not accept her and she could get the card later and the program would reimburse the hospital?

Again, she is pregnant. She is entitled to medical care. What makes possessing the card necessary unless there is some fee attached to it?

And there's the bottom line of your entire agenda.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FOR THEMSELVES!!

It's always everyone else's fault.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If people would give straight answers the "rants" wouldn't be necessary. Either the card is free to all pregnant women or it is not. If it is not free we do not know if she was able to afford one.

If it is free then it is illogical not to treat her because she doesn't have a card when it is obvious she was pregnant.

Why all the run-around? If pregnant women are entitled to free medical and it's obvious a woman is pregnant, as in this case, that's the end of the story. What the hell does a card have to do with anything unless there are a few facts being omitted.

Spit it out.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and goggle the information for yourself, seeing as how you can't seem to bring yourself to accept the information that's been provided.

But then, that would mean you would actually have to take the responsibility and do something, instead of sitting astride your hypocritical high horse.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The only reason I ask that question is people go on and on about how she could have free medical as if she merely had to walk into a government office with a pregnancy test and pick up a card.

I'm sure there are qualifications to meet and, no doubt, money to be exchanged but some folks brush over that and say she could have had a card.

We don't know if she could have had a card as far as meeting expectations, affording one, etc. That's my point and rather than them stating such they make it sound like the woman was too lazy to drop by and pick up a free one.

Please get through your thick ass skull.
SHE DIDN'T NEED ANY MONEY.

If you still don't understand it, then keep re-reading it until you do.
Then, when you finally do understand this; go blow your faux-righteous indignation out your ass.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The stupidity is on your part. You still don't understand why a universal plan is necessary. You still don't understand that all the exclusions and exceptions and other crap being forced into the bill in order to pass it is going to result in other disasters.

You don't know if she had the money for insurance. You have no idea if she forgot or put it off because she was busy.

The point is it didn't have to happen. A young, pregnant woman dies along with her fetus and people like you make asinine statements about a universal plan requiring a retired man to wait for a hip operation delaying his return to the golf course. Or waiting in line for a blood test. Or some other inconsequential incident attempting to show a universal plan is some devious, government take-over.

Mother of God, what are you people thinking?

I'm beginning to think that you have absolutely no ability to see anything other then what you FEEL shoud occur and that you would rather use supposition to support your agenda, then use facts.

More's the pity.

 

[Taichiliberal]

There are documented and verified stories that have been where people have died because either outright denial by insurance companies or bureaucratic stall tactics. That a live person tells her story to the public is just something the teabaggers can't BS by, so they do what they do best....deny and lie.

But have no fear, neocons....the watered down version of health care insurance reform that will eventually squeak through will insure that not much will change. So when you get that notice of denial or rate increase...pat yourselves on the back. Or in some cases, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

 

[apple0154]

She made a choice, exercised her freedoms in a way that had a risk.

And your straw man was attempting to say it was unavailable then later pretending you didn't even know it could have possibly been a choice. It took how many posts just to get you to "understand" that she chose not to be covered? It isn't like this farcical 'reform' would have made something available to her that wasn't. (It's like hearing somebody argue that everybody needs a Kia when they already own a Taurus). At least we finally got you to admit that she had available coverage that many people use regularly.

Yeah "silly" people take advantage of the sorrow of others because they expect thinking people to suddenly become irrational and stupid when somebody cries. You are so "silly"...

Way back in Msg. 70 you wrote, “They already do! For gods' sakes, there was available insurance for this woman,..”

In Msg 71USFREEDOM911 wrote, “You are either truly naive, or just plain obtuse; because if she had taken advantage of the pre-natal care (which doesn't stop after the birth has occured), she would have had a primary doctor and would have been covered.

They issue these little things called "CARDS", when they are under the care of a physician, and that "CARD" is acceptable at any hospital.”

In msg 73 I wrote, “I assume the "card" costs something. Do we know if she was capable of affording it?”

You replied in msg 75, “You "assume" wrongly. The government programs meant to help indigent mothers do not require payment and usually give them money, lower rent, and food stamps along with direct coupons to purchase items at the grocery store as well as health coverage. Again. These programs are supported by both parties and have been for years, they haven't gone anywhere and are still there for people in her situation.

We can conclude one thing, the woman didn't take coverage that was available and now we are supposed to grow retarded because her family cried at us.”

Then, in msg 86 you write, ““She made a choice, exercised her freedoms in a way that had a risk.

And your straw man was attempting to say it was unavailable then later pretending you didn't even know it could have possibly been a choice. It took how many posts just to get you to "understand" that she chose not to be covered?”

Of course insurance is available. Insurance is available for anything and to anyone. Of course there was insurance available to her IF SHE PAID FOR IT. That’s the point.

Talk about nonsense. Why would I say or even think insurance wasn’t available? The way you and US Freedom go on it implies one simply picks up a card. In countries with universal plans a parent fills out a form for a child and from then on, every so many years, they have a picture taken and a FREE card is sent. That’s “picking up a card”.

That’s why I questioned the remark, “All she had to do was pick up a card.” That wasn’t ALL she had to do. She had to PAY for the card. It’s like saying there’s no reason anyone doesn’t have a new car. All they have to do is go to a car dealer. There are cars available. If one doesn’t have a new car it’s because they chose not to "pick up" a new car.

 

[Damocles]

Way back in Msg. 70 you wrote, “They already do! For gods' sakes, there was available insurance for this woman,..”

In Msg 71USFREEDOM911 wrote, “You are either truly naive, or just plain obtuse; because if she had taken advantage of the pre-natal care (which doesn't stop after the birth has occured), she would have had a primary doctor and would have been covered.

They issue these little things called "CARDS", when they are under the care of a physician, and that "CARD" is acceptable at any hospital.”

In msg 73 I wrote, “I assume the "card" costs something. Do we know if she was capable of affording it?”

You replied in msg 75, “You "assume" wrongly. The government programs meant to help indigent mothers do not require payment and usually give them money, lower rent, and food stamps along with direct coupons to purchase items at the grocery store as well as health coverage. Again. These programs are supported by both parties and have been for years, they haven't gone anywhere and are still there for people in her situation.

We can conclude one thing, the woman didn't take coverage that was available and now we are supposed to grow retarded because her family cried at us.”

Then, in msg 86 you write, ““She made a choice, exercised her freedoms in a way that had a risk.

And your straw man was attempting to say it was unavailable then later pretending you didn't even know it could have possibly been a choice. It took how many posts just to get you to "understand" that she chose not to be covered?”

Of course insurance is available. Insurance is available for anything and to anyone. Of course there was insurance available to her IF SHE PAID FOR IT. That’s the point.

Talk about nonsense. Why would I say or even think insurance wasn’t available? The way you and US Freedom go on it implies one simply picks up a card. In countries with universal plans a parent fills out a form for a child and from then on, every so many years, they have a picture taken and a FREE card is sent. That’s “picking up a card”.

That’s why I questioned the remark, “All she had to do was pick up a card.” That wasn’t ALL she had to do. She had to PAY for the card. It’s like saying there’s no reason anyone doesn’t have a new car. All they have to do is go to a car dealer. There are cars available. If one doesn’t have a new car it’s because they chose not to "pick up" a new car.

No, she didn't have to "pay" for the card, that's the fricking point, Watson.

How can you possibly be this misinformed on government programs that are currently available? It's like you never heard of the programs available to women in those circumstances.

I know, it's because it is inconvenient to this nonsense you spew and call your "argument"!

One thing we know, if she was indigent she had available free coverage that she chose not to use, if she was not indigent she chose not to purchase coverage. I don't know why she chose that, but it is true.

(This has to be the 50th post saying the same thing, that she could have received government sponsored health care insurance if she was pregnant and indigent, let's see how he'll pretend it wasn't already stated and repeat how she'd have to "pay" even after it was pointed out that not only do they not pay, they get housing, food, and other necessities too).

 

[apple0154]

And there's the bottom line of your entire agenda.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FOR THEMSELVES!!

It's always everyone else's fault.

No, my "agenda" is not getting fooled by people who say insurance and coverage is available when they mean it's available for a cost.

Time for bed. I'll pick this up in the morning.

Don't forget to take an antacid tablet before bed. Big dinner and all.

 

[Damocles]

No, my "agenda" is not getting fooled by people who say insurance and coverage is available when they mean it's available for a cost.

Time for bed. I'll pick this up in the morning.

Don't forget to take an antacid tablet before bed. Big dinner and all.

Again, I'll type slowly.

If she was indigent it W.O.U.L.D. N.O.T. C.O.S.T.! That she chose not to avail herself of this doesn't change that it was available to her AT NO COST.

In fact, if she were indigent, she would likely receive low-cost housing, food, and other amenities necessary for the caregiver of her burgeoning child. This kind of thing has been available for decades and decades, and is supported by both major parties.

You simply want to trade available government coverage for a crappier government coverage that won't exist for more than 5 years. (Again, she had a Volvo available to drive, you insist she needs a free Kia, and she... well she chose not to use either, and that is up to her, not you, and it certainly isn't a reason to support crappy legislation because we had to watch somebody cry.)

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Way back in Msg. 70 you wrote, “They already do! For gods' sakes, there was available insurance for this woman,..”

In Msg 71USFREEDOM911 wrote, “You are either truly naive, or just plain obtuse; because if she had taken advantage of the pre-natal care (which doesn't stop after the birth has occured), she would have had a primary doctor and would have been covered.

They issue these little things called "CARDS", when they are under the care of a physician, and that "CARD" is acceptable at any hospital.”

In msg 73 I wrote, “I assume the "card" costs something. Do we know if she was capable of affording it?”

You replied in msg 75, “You "assume" wrongly. The government programs meant to help indigent mothers do not require payment and usually give them money, lower rent, and food stamps along with direct coupons to purchase items at the grocery store as well as health coverage. Again. These programs are supported by both parties and have been for years, they haven't gone anywhere and are still there for people in her situation.

We can conclude one thing, the woman didn't take coverage that was available and now we are supposed to grow retarded because her family cried at us.”

Then, in msg 86 you write, ““She made a choice, exercised her freedoms in a way that had a risk.

And your straw man was attempting to say it was unavailable then later pretending you didn't even know it could have possibly been a choice. It took how many posts just to get you to "understand" that she chose not to be covered?”

Of course insurance is available. Insurance is available for anything and to anyone. Of course there was insurance available to her IF SHE PAID FOR IT. That’s the point.

Talk about nonsense. Why would I say or even think insurance wasn’t available? The way you and US Freedom go on it implies one simply picks up a card. In countries with universal plans a parent fills out a form for a child and from then on, every so many years, they have a picture taken and a FREE card is sent. That’s “picking up a card”.

That’s why I questioned the remark, “All she had to do was pick up a card.” That wasn’t ALL she had to do. She had to PAY for the card. It’s like saying there’s no reason anyone doesn’t have a new car. All they have to do is go to a car dealer. There are cars available. If one doesn’t have a new car it’s because they chose not to "pick up" a new car.

FOR the last time, you ignorant hack; SHE DOESN;T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CARD, IF SHE CAN'T AFFORD HER OWN INSURANCE.

Now; if you bring it up one more time, your entire post will be ignored.
So, please take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, she didn't have to "pay" for the card, that's the fricking point, Watson.

How can you possibly be this misinformed on government programs that are currently available? It's like you never heard of the programs available to women in those circumstances.

I know, it's because it is inconvenient to this nonsense you spew and call your "argument"!

One thing we know, if she was indigent she had available free coverage that she chose not to use, if she was not indigent she chose not to purchase coverage. I don't know why she chose that, but it is true.

(This has to be the 50th post saying the same thing, that she could have received government sponsored health care insurance if she was pregnant and indigent, let's see how he'll pretend it wasn't already stated and repeat how she'd have to "pay" even after it was pointed out that not only do they not pay, they get housing, food, and other necessities too).

Further proof that he hs no idea of what he's bitchin about.
He's just bitchin for the sake of doing so.

 

[apple0154]

If she was indigent it W.O.U.L.D. N.O.T. C.O.S.T.! That she chose not to avail herself of this doesn't change that it was available to her AT NO COST.

Back to square one. If someone qualifies for a free card then what difference would it make if they had not previously obtained one as far as covering medical expenses?

If everyone knows pregnant women qualify for medical insurance then why wouldn't a hospital run a few inexpensive tests? If it's determined the woman requires expensive medical treatment why wouldn't a hospital have someone on staff to assist the patient in getting the free card? Half an hour on the phone would bring in thousands of dollars for the hospital.

When anyone is ill the hospital contacts the patient's insurance company to see if they are, in fact, covered. If insurance for pregnant women is so common, so readily available, why wouldn't the hospital call the necessary place and arrange for the woman to be covered?

Is it set up so if a woman is hospitalized and can't personally show up at a specific place she can not obtain medical coverage? Is that considered being readily available?

The point is the tests necessary to determine if she had pneumonia would not have cost a lot of money. If the woman couldn't afford the cost of the tests she probably couldn't afford any money for a card which means the card would be free which means she would be entitled to have those tests done. Do I need to spell it out in any more detail in order for you to grasp it?

The system is screwed up. Rather than make it easy for people to get the necessary treatment the rules and procedures hamper that. That's why universal coverage is preferable. Those things do not happen under universal coverage.

The end result is the hospital was so concerned about losing the paltry bit of money the tests may have cost that a woman lost her life. Either she was destitute to the point where she qualified for a free card or she could have managed to pay the hospital for the tests over a period of time.

Now do you understand? Anything less than universal coverage will result in errors directly due to greed.

Spin it any way you want. A woman lost her life because a hospital didn't want to take a chance on losing a few hundred dollars. That's a fact and it's outrageous in a country as affluent as the US.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Again, I'll type slowly.

If she was indigent it W.O.U.L.D. N.O.T. C.O.S.T.! That she chose not to avail herself of this doesn't change that it was available to her AT NO COST.

In fact, if she were indigent, she would likely receive low-cost housing, food, and other amenities necessary for the caregiver of her burgeoning child. This kind of thing has been available for decades and decades, and is supported by both major parties.

You simply want to trade available government coverage for a crappier government coverage that won't exist for more than 5 years. (Again, she had a Volvo available to drive, you insist she needs a free Kia, and she... well she chose not to use either, and that is up to her, not you, and it certainly isn't a reason to support crappy legislation because we had to watch somebody cry.)

 

[Damocles]

Back to square one. If someone qualifies for a free card then what difference would it make if they had not previously obtained one as far as covering medical expenses?

If everyone knows pregnant women qualify for medical insurance then why wouldn't a hospital run a few inexpensive tests? If it's determined the woman requires expensive medical treatment why wouldn't a hospital have someone on staff to assist the patient in getting the free card? Half an hour on the phone would bring in thousands of dollars for the hospital.

When anyone is ill the hospital contacts the patient's insurance company to see if they are, in fact, covered. If insurance for pregnant women is so common, so readily available, why wouldn't the hospital call the necessary place and arrange for the woman to be covered?

Is it set up so if a woman is hospitalized and can't personally show up at a specific place she can not obtain medical coverage? Is that considered being readily available?

The point is the tests necessary to determine if she had pneumonia would not have cost a lot of money. If the woman couldn't afford the cost of the tests she probably couldn't afford any money for a card which means the card would be free which means she would be entitled to have those tests done. Do I need to spell it out in any more detail in order for you to grasp it?

The system is screwed up. Rather than make it easy for people to get the necessary treatment the rules and procedures hamper that. That's why universal coverage is preferable. Those things do not happen under universal coverage.

The end result is the hospital was so concerned about losing the paltry bit of money the tests may have cost that a woman lost her life. Either she was destitute to the point where she qualified for a free card or she could have managed to pay the hospital for the tests over a period of time.

Now do you understand? Anything less than universal coverage will result in errors directly due to greed.

Spin it any way you want. A woman lost her life because a hospital didn't want to take a chance on losing a few hundred dollars. That's a fact and it's outrageous in a country as affluent as the US.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Again. One must show that they do qualify. Much like they would with the "reform" you support.

In short nothing would have changed for this woman, hence the reason that we reject your insistence that this is a "good case" to use as an example of the need for the "reform" solely based on tearful remonstrations of her story.

You seem to think that if the law passes she suddenly wouldn't need a card and would not have to do anything at all to receive coverage, but there is nothing in the "reform" that does that. Although she could go to prison for making the same choice she made.