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

[christiefan915]

I didn't think you do, nor do I..but people saw through the game that was being played on them and they reacted...not much more to it, but of course we get a special writeup on it about teabaggers and conservatives from the Hufferpost of all places how people are soooooo mean...

Hey mimi, here's a newsflash. It was a townhall meeting and everybody was invited to give input, not just those against health care reform. For somebody who regularly spouts off about free speech, you don't seem to want that right extended to those you disagree with.

That being said, it was absolutely despicable to heap scorn on a grieving family, no matter what their political affiliation. Is nothing sacred anymore? You started a thread criticizing Norah O'Donnell for her calmly-stated remarks to a teenager, but you're sticking up for these POSs who would mock the Hough family for a death. You all definitely need to take a step back and ask yourselves if this is the way you'd want somebody to react over your loss.

You probably can't see it but this kind of behaviour hurts the TP movement more than helps it. It paints those supporters as fanatical, uncaring idiots, which I'm sure is not the way most RWs are in real life.
'

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

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

How about because it's about doing what you're supposed to do, to help yourself.
And GEE; maybe this way there's a record of what medication she's taking, any problems that someone may need to know about, are there any complications another doctor may need to know about, etc.

Are you so ingrained into your own agenda, that you have absolutely no clue to this.

 

[christiefan915]

why is it a false choice? you knowingly go to a rally with a true tear jerker of a story and you say it is a false choice to ask whether she should expect tears?

It was a TOWNHALL meeting. Everybody gets to state their opinions. The Hough's story is just as valid a contribution as the TP stories.

 

[christiefan915]

You're discounting the time factor. One day she walks into a hospital and the next day she is hospitalized and ends up dying. The first hospital should have run tests. What would have happened if her doctor was away for the day?

Is pre-natal care free? If so, surely the doctors could tell she was pregnant so why concern themselves with insurance if she was entitled to insurance? If the care isn't free then the question is, "Could she afford it?"

What the RWs are avoiding is that there are income guidelines on WIC and other services and it's possible this family was just over the allowable limit for getting free care. We don't know the income history here so it's foolish to just assume Jennifer chose not to get something she was entitled to.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What the RWs are avoiding is that there are income guidelines on WIC and other services and it's possible this family was just over the allowable limit for getting free care. We don't know the income history here so it's foolish to just assume Jennifer chose not to get something she was entitled to.

But it's OK to assume that she didn't get someting for any other reason; HUH!!

 

[christiefan915]

I want to hear the other side of this. Something is fishy and it just doesn't add up.

She didn't die from a pregnancy-related condition, she had "severe double pneumonia, septic shock and respiratory failure", so why are you all making this about prenatal care?

 

[apple0154]

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.

Now, now. Don't hemorrhage.

Read my last post to Damocles and do try to grasp the contents.

If special medical coverage is intended to protect pregnant women, if the goal is to ensure pregnant women get adequate medical services, why would a hospital refuse to run a few inexpensive tests?

If a woman qualified for a free card today the chances are she qualified yesterday. If that's the case why wouldn't the cost be born by the insurance IF the goal is to protect pregnant women?

No one knows why she didn't have a card. Maybe she had a good reason.

Again, rather than run a few tests while determining why she doesn't have a card and helping her to obtain one the hospital's greed led to the woman's death.

In case you're still having difficulty understanding the point is rules and procedures to do with payment/money resulted in her death. That should not be the case. That should never happen.

Whether the card is free, whether she just never bothered to pick one up.....the point is her not having a card should not have led to her death. A person's life should not depend on whether or not they have a card.

Forget the reasons why she didn't have a card. Look at the result. That's the point.

 

[christiefan915]

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]

How about because it's about doing what you're supposed to do, to help yourself.
And GEE; maybe this way there's a record of what medication she's taking, any problems that someone may need to know about, are there any complications another doctor may need to know about, etc.

Are you so ingrained into your own agenda, that you have absolutely no clue to this.

A doctor can't take a few minutes to ask, "What medications, if any, are you taking?"

You make this sound so complicated.

 

[apple0154]

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.

The reform is the first step. It is because of the opponents that there are still restrictions and the need to "qualify" for something or other. As I mentioned before obstacles have been set up so the course is anything but straight.

I have no illusions the proposed bill is anywhere near perfect. It can't be because of all the exceptions and exclusions and the need to qualify and all the other things the opposition demanded be placed in it.

It is, however, a step in the right direction.

For example, the obligation to have insurance. Today, an uninsured woman who becomes pregnant needs to consider insurance not only for herself but for her future offspring. That will no longer be the case because she will already be insured.

If one changes jobs or becomes unemployed it's easy to put the purchase of insurance off until things "settle down". It's easy to go uninsured for a month or so hoping the next job will offer insurance coverage. That will end. Everyone will be obliged to be insured whether working or not working.

People will become accustomed to being insured, regardless of circumstances, and some will be grateful because something will happen that will require them to be insured and they will realize that if they had the option they probably wouldn't have had insurance at that particular time. For example, during a job change.

As time progresses people will see that insurance should be automatic, as with a universal plan.

That is the goal. The opponents are making it as difficult as possible, thus, the problems you mention but they will be ironed out, one by one.

 

[apple0154]

What the RWs are avoiding is that there are income guidelines on WIC and other services and it's possible this family was just over the allowable limit for getting free care. We don't know the income history here so it's foolish to just assume Jennifer chose not to get something she was entitled to.

Exactly! They make it sound like the card is there, free for the taking. One does not pay for nor have to qualify for something they are entitled to.

It's ludicrous for them to say insurance is available. Of course it's available for those who pay.

 

[Damocles]

What the RWs are avoiding is that there are income guidelines on WIC and other services and it's possible this family was just over the allowable limit for getting free care. We don't know the income history here so it's foolish to just assume Jennifer chose not to get something she was entitled to.

What the LW's don't realize is it isn't the family's income that matters for WIC, only the girl's. So it's foolish to suggest the income history of her family has anything to do with it at all.

 

[Annie]

What the LW's don't realize is it isn't the family's income that matters for WIC, only the girl's. So it's foolish to suggest the income history of her family has anything to do with it at all.

You have the patience of a saint! Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[evince]

What a fucking heartless country we have become

 

[Damocles]

What a fucking heartless country we have become

It isn't heartless to point out she had available coverage, Desh. It also isn't heartless to allow her to make choices with her own life.

 

[evince]

Sorry I was not talking about your posts. I was just talking about how sad this story is and how sad that people still think anyone deserves this fate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What a fucking heartless country we have become

I completely agree. When groups of people deny others the right to self defense, simply because they themselves are afraid to defend themselves, we've become totally heartless.

 

[evince]

the right loves to say we are a christian country and also loves to tell people to go away and die where they domnt have to watch.

They love stupid people at the top of their tickets, just cream their jeans at the thought of war and think we should treat our nieghbors like shit so they can feel like tough guys.

What the hell is that all about?

 

[apple0154]

the right loves to say we are a christian country and also loves to tell people to go away and die where they domnt have to watch.

They love stupid people at the top of their tickets, just cream their jeans at the thought of war and think we should treat our nieghbors like shit so they can feel like tough guys.

What the hell is that all about?

I believe it's because of the way they were treated.

There used it be Poster ADS here showing a mistreated child and the Ad read, "Violence begets violence."

It's the same principal. People think it's good for others to suffer, to do without, to scratch and scrape their way through life because that's what many had to do.

Why would anyone help someone if they were never helped themselves? They continue the cycle.

It's madness, as you noted. But things are changing. Slowly.

 

[meme]

the left is the people of compassion..they want to give others things by stealing others monies through the Government then they can crow about how "they care" more..and lets not forget the compassion they have for future UNBORN children being sucked from a mothers womb because they are just CELLS and it's a free choice......

and they say it's conservative who are heartless..