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

USFREEDOM911 said:
"...People will become accustomed to being insured..."

Kind of like slaves will eventually become accostomed to being owned. :good4u:

Good job. :palm:
Click to expand...

I now understand why you use that particular smilie. Does information and knowledge hurt your head?

Your ignorance regarding universal/government run health plans is truly appalling. Perhaps a little less time posting nonsense on here and using that time to google universal plans in effect elsewhere you'll gain some understanding.

Here's an exercise you might wish to start with. Try to find a country which has a universal plan AND a viable political movement that campaigns dismantling it.

There is no time limit and like an old computer with a low processing speed assimilate the knowledge at a rate comfortable for you.

Get back to me.
 
apple0154 said:
I now understand why you use that particular smilie. Does information and knowledge hurt your head?

Your ignorance regarding universal/government run health plans is truly appalling. Perhaps a little less time posting nonsense on here and using that time to google universal plans in effect elsewhere you'll gain some understanding.

Here's an exercise you might wish to start with. Try to find a country which has a universal plan AND a viable political movement that campaigns dismantling it.

There is no time limit and like an old computer with a low processing speed assimilate the knowledge at a rate comfortable for you.

Get back to me.
Click to expand...


She had access to medical care and she choose not to utilize it. :palm:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The left only uses money, to hold other people down.
Liberals have become the new slave owners.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how providing medical services rather than letting someone die is holding them down. I would say throwing sex feet of earth on top of someone is holding them down. Wouldn't you? :confused:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm gong to take a page from your book.

She had access to medical care and she choose not to utilize it. :palm:
Click to expand...

Right. The same way I have access to a new car but choose not to utilize it.

Even my credit card companies/banks want to help me. One just increased my limit, without my asking, so I can utilize it for Christmas shopping. Another sent low interest checks. Darn nice of them, don't you think?
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not sure how providing medical services rather than letting someone die is holding them down. I would say throwing sex feet of earth on top of someone is holding them down. Wouldn't you? :confused:
Click to expand...

Only if it's rough "sex".

She had access to medical care and she choose not to utilize it. :palm:
 
apple0154 said:
Right. The same way I have access to a new car but choose not to utilize it.

Even my credit card companies/banks want to help me. One just increased my limit, without my asking, so I can utilize it for Christmas shopping. Another sent low interest checks. Darn nice of them, don't you think?
Click to expand...

She had access to medical care and she choose not to utilize it. :palm:
 
Damocles said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Damoclese, that is not true. There is always a cost associated with every medical procedure. Hospitals are for-profit. Government reimbursements for indigents are less than private insurance. Hospital employees are "encouraged" to make sure the profit margin is maximized. Their "triage" is more for the profit than for the care.

Therefore, an indigent patient presenting with a complaint equal to the complaint of an insured patient is highly likely to be be shunted back home, while the insured patient will be treated to billable tests and treatment.

This young mother was turned away because of that attitude. And she died.

This being said, I agree with you that the "health care reform" will not fix this.

But the problem does exist. And the programs that you outline operate under the same fiscal constraints that the hospitals do.
 
The experts on this board are mind-boggling. First of all, not all hospitals in the US are for-profit.

:clink:
egordon0315 said:
Damoclese, that is not true. There is always a cost associated with every medical procedure. Hospitals are for-profit. Government reimbursements for indigents are less than private insurance. Hospital employees are "encouraged" to make sure the profit margin is maximized. Their "triage" is more for the profit than for the care.

Therefore, an indigent patient presenting with a complaint equal to the complaint of an insured patient is highly likely to be be shunted back home, while the insured patient will be treated to billable tests and treatment.

This young mother was turned away because of that attitude. And she died.

This being said, I agree with you that the "health care reform" will not fix this.

But the problem does exist. And the programs that you outline operate under the same fiscal constraints that the hospitals do.
Click to expand...
 
egordon0315 said:
Damoclese, that is not true. There is always a cost associated with every medical procedure. Hospitals are for-profit. Government reimbursements for indigents are less than private insurance. Hospital employees are "encouraged" to make sure the profit margin is maximized. Their "triage" is more for the profit than for the care.

Therefore, an indigent patient presenting with a complaint equal to the complaint of an insured patient is highly likely to be be shunted back home, while the insured patient will be treated to billable tests and treatment.

This young mother was turned away because of that attitude. And she died.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Every for-profit enterprise makes profit their number one priority. The "we care about you" slogans of a medical facility are as genuine as a bank saying how much they care.

I can't believe naivety is the sole reason people support the "pay or suffer" system.

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

egordon0315 said:
Damoclese, that is not true. There is always a cost associated with every medical procedure. Hospitals are for-profit. Government reimbursements for indigents are less than private insurance. Hospital employees are "encouraged" to make sure the profit margin is maximized. Their "triage" is more for the profit than for the care.

Therefore, an indigent patient presenting with a complaint equal to the complaint of an insured patient is highly likely to be be shunted back home, while the insured patient will be treated to billable tests and treatment.

This young mother was turned away because of that attitude. And she died.

This being said, I agree with you that the "health care reform" will not fix this.

But the problem does exist. And the programs that you outline operate under the same fiscal constraints that the hospitals do.
Click to expand...
 
Would somone explain to the neocon numbskull lemmings that as it stands, the "reforms" would put MILLIONS more customers into the laps of the insurance companies. Period.

What the insurance companies are afraid of is:

Accountability to be fair to their customers

Competition from a gov't agency.

Deal with it, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top