Democrats Folding????

[PoliticalChic]

Notice that the law puts the power of 'determination' in the hands of the hospital, not in the hands of the individual seeking treatment.

That is directly and irrefutably contrary to your claim that the individual can claim his condition is an emergency, and thus force the hospital to treat him under the law.

Totally up to the intake individual.

Do you have stats on how many appearing at an ER are turned away?


Didn't think so.

Do you have even one shred of credible evidence that contradicts what the law says?

(How is it possible for any person to deny the actual text of an actual law placed in evidence to support a claim? Where did that person go wrong?)

List the criteria that are used in said 'determination.'

What would the intake intern use as his/determination?

Right....there aren't any.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Totally up to the intake individual.

Do you have stats on how many appearing at an ER are turned away?


Didn't think so.

Do you have even one shred of credible evidence that contradicts what the law says?

(How is it possible for any person to deny the actual text of an actual law placed in evidence to support a claim? Where did that person go wrong?)

List the criteria that are used in said 'determination.'

What would the intake intern use as his/determination?

Right....there aren't any.

The definition provided under the statute is:


"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child.

...and here are the relevant court cases:

12. What if an emergency medical condition is not properly diagnosed at the transferring hospital?

If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that the statute does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation.

The court in Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538 (E.D.N.C. 1991) stated that EMTALA requires only that a medical screening procedure be established and that it be followed in every case, without regard to ability to pay, and that EMTALA is not violated even if the screening procedure is insufficient under state malpractice law.

Some of the cases have suggested otherwise, however. There was a brief mention in Deberry v. Sherman Hospital Association, 741 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill.1990), to the effect that a hospital could be found to be in violation of EMTALA for failure to diagnose an emergency medical condition through an inadequate screening procedure. This principle is at least implicitly recognized in other cases as well. See, for example, Power v. Arlington Hospital, 42 F3d 851 (4th Cir 1994) (failure to order CBC, leading to missed diagnosis of sepsis).

The most prominent case on this point is Summers v. Baptist Medical Center of Arkadelphia, 69 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1995), rev on reh en banc 91 F.3d 1132 (1996). In that case, an examination of a patient who had fallen from a tree stand while hunting was allegedly incomplete because a chest x-ray had not been included when a set of spinal x-rays was ordered. The physician did not believe that the patient had any fractures, and discharged him home, with instructions. There was no transfer to another facility involved. The patient presented at another hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed with an acute comminuted vertebral fracture, a sternal fracture, and bilateral hemopneumothoraces secondary to untreated rib fractures.

The original decision of the three-judge Court of Appeals was that the Complaint did state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that the failure of a doctor to follow what he admitted was a standard screening diagnostic protocol supported a claim for a violation of EMTALA. When the case was decided on rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, this decision was reversed and it was held that providing a screening examination, even if it is negligent under state-created malpractice law, is sufficient to provide full compliance with EMTALA, and that only disparate treatment in the screening process would support a claim. Further information on this case is found at the EMTALA.COM site, Summers.

FAQ on EMTALA

 

[S.J.]

Totally up to the intake individual.

Do you have stats on how many appearing at an ER are turned away?


Didn't think so.

Do you have even one shred of credible evidence that contradicts what the law says?

(How is it possible for any person to deny the actual text of an actual law placed in evidence to support a claim? Where did that person go wrong?)

List the criteria that are used in said 'determination.'

What would the intake intern use as his/determination?

Right....there aren't any.

Skin color.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have even one shred of credible evidence that contradicts what the law says?

(How is it possible for any person to deny the actual text of an actual law placed in evidence to support a claim? Where did that person go wrong?)

List the criteria that are used in said 'determination.'

What would the intake intern use as his/determination?

Right....there aren't any.

The definition provided under the statute is:


"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child.

...and here are the relevant court cases:

12. What if an emergency medical condition is not properly diagnosed at the transferring hospital?

If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that the statute does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation.

The court in Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538 (E.D.N.C. 1991) stated that EMTALA requires only that a medical screening procedure be established and that it be followed in every case, without regard to ability to pay, and that EMTALA is not violated even if the screening procedure is insufficient under state malpractice law.

Some of the cases have suggested otherwise, however. There was a brief mention in Deberry v. Sherman Hospital Association, 741 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill.1990), to the effect that a hospital could be found to be in violation of EMTALA for failure to diagnose an emergency medical condition through an inadequate screening procedure. This principle is at least implicitly recognized in other cases as well. See, for example, Power v. Arlington Hospital, 42 F3d 851 (4th Cir 1994) (failure to order CBC, leading to missed diagnosis of sepsis).

The most prominent case on this point is Summers v. Baptist Medical Center of Arkadelphia, 69 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1995), rev on reh en banc 91 F.3d 1132 (1996). In that case, an examination of a patient who had fallen from a tree stand while hunting was allegedly incomplete because a chest x-ray had not been included when a set of spinal x-rays was ordered. The physician did not believe that the patient had any fractures, and discharged him home, with instructions. There was no transfer to another facility involved. The patient presented at another hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed with an acute comminuted vertebral fracture, a sternal fracture, and bilateral hemopneumothoraces secondary to untreated rib fractures.

The original decision of the three-judge Court of Appeals was that the Complaint did state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that the failure of a doctor to follow what he admitted was a standard screening diagnostic protocol supported a claim for a violation of EMTALA. When the case was decided on rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, this decision was reversed and it was held that providing a screening examination, even if it is negligent under state-created malpractice law, is sufficient to provide full compliance with EMTALA, and that only disparate treatment in the screening process would support a claim. Further information on this case is found at the EMTALA.COM site, Summers.

FAQ on EMTALA

What the heck is your point???

1. ER room usage in Massachusetts is up

2. You can find every kind of illness in any ER

3. The 'proof' you provided sinks any presumption on your part that ERs are not used indiscriminately.....

From your post: "acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)"

That is based on the report of the patient....and allows pretty much anything.

4. What the heck is your point??? Are you claiming that ObamaCare will be any more efficient than any other government program?
Yup....just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal.....



(Actually, there was a gov program that I endorse: the G.I.Bill)

 

[Old Rocks]

That's all right, kids. We will iron the kinks out of the ACA, then get on to a real system, a Single Payer Universal Health Care System. Like all of the other successful democratic nations have. Our 'Conservatives' have kept our health care in the 19th century.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's all right, kids. We will iron the kinks out of the ACA, then get on to a real system, a Single Payer Universal Health Care System. Like all of the other successful democratic nations have. Our 'Conservatives' have kept our health care in the 19th century.

Gee, daddy!

Ya' we can have one just like the one Uncle Joe Stalin wanted????

Wow!

I feel like dancing to the Internationale!

 

[NYcarbineer]

List the criteria that are used in said 'determination.'

What would the intake intern use as his/determination?

Right....there aren't any.

The definition provided under the statute is:


"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child.

...and here are the relevant court cases:

12. What if an emergency medical condition is not properly diagnosed at the transferring hospital?

If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that the statute does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation.

The court in Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538 (E.D.N.C. 1991) stated that EMTALA requires only that a medical screening procedure be established and that it be followed in every case, without regard to ability to pay, and that EMTALA is not violated even if the screening procedure is insufficient under state malpractice law.

Some of the cases have suggested otherwise, however. There was a brief mention in Deberry v. Sherman Hospital Association, 741 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill.1990), to the effect that a hospital could be found to be in violation of EMTALA for failure to diagnose an emergency medical condition through an inadequate screening procedure. This principle is at least implicitly recognized in other cases as well. See, for example, Power v. Arlington Hospital, 42 F3d 851 (4th Cir 1994) (failure to order CBC, leading to missed diagnosis of sepsis).

The most prominent case on this point is Summers v. Baptist Medical Center of Arkadelphia, 69 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1995), rev on reh en banc 91 F.3d 1132 (1996). In that case, an examination of a patient who had fallen from a tree stand while hunting was allegedly incomplete because a chest x-ray had not been included when a set of spinal x-rays was ordered. The physician did not believe that the patient had any fractures, and discharged him home, with instructions. There was no transfer to another facility involved. The patient presented at another hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed with an acute comminuted vertebral fracture, a sternal fracture, and bilateral hemopneumothoraces secondary to untreated rib fractures.

The original decision of the three-judge Court of Appeals was that the Complaint did state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that the failure of a doctor to follow what he admitted was a standard screening diagnostic protocol supported a claim for a violation of EMTALA. When the case was decided on rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, this decision was reversed and it was held that providing a screening examination, even if it is negligent under state-created malpractice law, is sufficient to provide full compliance with EMTALA, and that only disparate treatment in the screening process would support a claim. Further information on this case is found at the EMTALA.COM site, Summers.

FAQ on EMTALA

What the heck is your point???

1. ER room usage in Massachusetts is up

2. You can find every kind of illness in any ER

3. The 'proof' you provided sinks any presumption on your part that ERs are not used indiscriminately.....

From your post: "acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)"

That is based on the report of the patient....and allows pretty much anything.

4. What the heck is your point??? Are you claiming that ObamaCare will be any more efficient than any other government program?
Yup....just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal.....



(Actually, there was a gov program that I endorse: the G.I.Bill)

You made a statement that was in error. I corrected your error.

Obamacare requires insurance companies to increase their medical loss ratios to 85%, or refund the shortfall to policyholders. By contrast, Medicare's medical loss ratio is at 98%.

Do you know what any of that means?

 

[P@triot]

What???

A Democrat Senator opposing "the One"???


1. "Jeanne Shaheen Calls For Obamacare Enrollment Deadline Extension

2. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) called on the White House Tuesday to extend the open enrollment deadline for Obamacare because of the government's glitchy website rollout.

3. In a letter to the White House ...Shaheen said her constituents have faced "incredibly frustrating and disappointing" issues with HealthCare.gov,....

4. ... people that have tried, and failed, to enroll online may become frustrated and not return to the website to try again ...

5. Shaheen is the first Democrat to support an extension of the enrollment deadline.

6. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he would introduce a bill with a similar premise -- calling for a delay to the penalty that uninsured Americans will face if they do not sign up for insurance before the March deadline.

7. "It's not fair to punish people..."
Jeanne Shaheen Calls For Obamacare Enrollment Deadline Extension

The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

They folded a long time ago when the architect of Obamacare - Dumbocrat Senator Max Baucus - called it a "train wreck".

 

[Derideo_Te]

calling for extending the enrollment period for ObamaCare means "abandoning Obama"???

such idiotic logic.

the system has big problems, we should adjust policy due to actual, technical issues, not purely based on ideology like what the Tea Baggers want to do.

"...not purely based on ideology..."

1. You seem confused.

It is ObamaCare that is based on ideology....

Didn't you know that he concept was a long-standing communist program?


For your edification:
2. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine."
Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252



Go forth and sin no more.

Who would ever have guessed that the Republican plan drawn up to oppose "Hilarycare" and implemented by Romney in MA were a "long-standing communist program"?
[MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The definition provided under the statute is:


"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child.

...and here are the relevant court cases:

12. What if an emergency medical condition is not properly diagnosed at the transferring hospital?

If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that the statute does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation.

The court in Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538 (E.D.N.C. 1991) stated that EMTALA requires only that a medical screening procedure be established and that it be followed in every case, without regard to ability to pay, and that EMTALA is not violated even if the screening procedure is insufficient under state malpractice law.

Some of the cases have suggested otherwise, however. There was a brief mention in Deberry v. Sherman Hospital Association, 741 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill.1990), to the effect that a hospital could be found to be in violation of EMTALA for failure to diagnose an emergency medical condition through an inadequate screening procedure. This principle is at least implicitly recognized in other cases as well. See, for example, Power v. Arlington Hospital, 42 F3d 851 (4th Cir 1994) (failure to order CBC, leading to missed diagnosis of sepsis).

The most prominent case on this point is Summers v. Baptist Medical Center of Arkadelphia, 69 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1995), rev on reh en banc 91 F.3d 1132 (1996). In that case, an examination of a patient who had fallen from a tree stand while hunting was allegedly incomplete because a chest x-ray had not been included when a set of spinal x-rays was ordered. The physician did not believe that the patient had any fractures, and discharged him home, with instructions. There was no transfer to another facility involved. The patient presented at another hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed with an acute comminuted vertebral fracture, a sternal fracture, and bilateral hemopneumothoraces secondary to untreated rib fractures.

The original decision of the three-judge Court of Appeals was that the Complaint did state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that the failure of a doctor to follow what he admitted was a standard screening diagnostic protocol supported a claim for a violation of EMTALA. When the case was decided on rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, this decision was reversed and it was held that providing a screening examination, even if it is negligent under state-created malpractice law, is sufficient to provide full compliance with EMTALA, and that only disparate treatment in the screening process would support a claim. Further information on this case is found at the EMTALA.COM site, Summers.

FAQ on EMTALA

What the heck is your point???

1. ER room usage in Massachusetts is up

2. You can find every kind of illness in any ER

3. The 'proof' you provided sinks any presumption on your part that ERs are not used indiscriminately.....

From your post: "acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)"

That is based on the report of the patient....and allows pretty much anything.

4. What the heck is your point??? Are you claiming that ObamaCare will be any more efficient than any other government program?
Yup....just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal.....



(Actually, there was a gov program that I endorse: the G.I.Bill)

You made a statement that was in error. I corrected your error.

Obamacare requires insurance companies to increase their medical loss ratios to 85%, or refund the shortfall to policyholders. By contrast, Medicare's medical loss ratio is at 98%.

Do you know what any of that means?

"You made a statement that was in error. I corrected your error."

Wow....you managed two huge errors in those sentences.

Can you see them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

calling for extending the enrollment period for ObamaCare means "abandoning Obama"???

such idiotic logic.

the system has big problems, we should adjust policy due to actual, technical issues, not purely based on ideology like what the Tea Baggers want to do.

"...not purely based on ideology..."

1. You seem confused.

It is ObamaCare that is based on ideology....

Didn't you know that he concept was a long-standing communist program?


For your edification:
2. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine."
Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252



Go forth and sin no more.

Who would ever have guessed that the Republican plan drawn up to oppose "Hilarycare" and implemented by Romney in MA were a "long-standing communist program"?

So...you agree that Sigerist was endorsing communism for America....

And, it was basically ObamaCare....we can call it 'medical totalitarianism.'

Good.


We're on the same page.

 

[P@triot]

Obamacare requires insurance companies to increase their medical loss ratios to 85%, or refund the shortfall to policyholders. By contrast, Medicare's medical loss ratio is at 98%.

And remind me again where Obama derives the power to tell a private company anything? Oh wait - that's right, you can't.

So you'll do what every Dumbocrat when they've lost a debate built on facts, you'll respond with some nonsensical response like "we the people" or "the Supreme Court said so". It would be rolling on the floor hysterical if your ignorance wasn't so tragic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...not purely based on ideology..."

1. You seem confused.

It is ObamaCare that is based on ideology....

Didn't you know that he concept was a long-standing communist program?


For your edification:
2. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine."
Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252



Go forth and sin no more.

Who would ever have guessed that the Republican plan drawn up to oppose "Hilarycare" and implemented by Romney in MA were a "long-standing communist program"?

So...you agree that Sigerist was endorsing communism for America....

And, it was basically ObamaCare....we can call it 'medical totalitarianism.'

Good.


We're on the same page.

Take away the inflammatory rhetoric and we most certainly are, PC. The need to convert healthcare from a profit driven commodity that is beyond the means of the less fortunate to a "right" for everyone is a necessary social evolution.
[MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION]

 

[P@triot]

Take away the inflammatory rhetoric and we most certainly are, PC. The need to convert healthcare from a profit driven commodity that is beyond the means of the less fortunate to a "right" for everyone is a necessary social evolution.

First of all [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], who the fuck are you to make that declaration?

Second, and much more important, if that's the way you feel - get up off of your lazy fuck'n ass, start a hospital, and provide healthcare as a "right" to those "less fortunate".

Or, get up off of your lazy fuck'n ass, become a doctor yourself, and provide healthcare as a "right" to those "less fortunate".

See how the free market works? The freedom to make your beliefs come to fruition without impeding on my freedoms and fucking up my healthcare.

But you're far too fuck'n lazy to do anything yourself. You want to make me do it for you. Pathetic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the heck is your point???

1. ER room usage in Massachusetts is up

2. You can find every kind of illness in any ER

3. The 'proof' you provided sinks any presumption on your part that ERs are not used indiscriminately.....

From your post: "acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)"

That is based on the report of the patient....and allows pretty much anything.

4. What the heck is your point??? Are you claiming that ObamaCare will be any more efficient than any other government program?
Yup....just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal.....



(Actually, there was a gov program that I endorse: the G.I.Bill)

You made a statement that was in error. I corrected your error.

Obamacare requires insurance companies to increase their medical loss ratios to 85%, or refund the shortfall to policyholders. By contrast, Medicare's medical loss ratio is at 98%.

Do you know what any of that means?

"You made a statement that was in error. I corrected your error."

Wow....you managed two huge errors in those sentences.

Can you see them?

Proving you wrong is the cake. Watching you writhe in denial is the icing.

btw, over in another thread you said that an elderly person with macular degeneration could not receive treatment unless the sight in the eye was totally gone...

...here you say that all that person would have to do is go to the hospital, declare their condition an emergency, and they could then not be denied treatment.

Question: Which is it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who would ever have guessed that the Republican plan drawn up to oppose "Hilarycare" and implemented by Romney in MA were a "long-standing communist program"?

So...you agree that Sigerist was endorsing communism for America....

And, it was basically ObamaCare....we can call it 'medical totalitarianism.'

Good.


We're on the same page.

Take away the inflammatory rhetoric and we most certainly are, PC. The need to convert healthcare from a profit driven commodity that is beyond the means of the less fortunate to a "right" for everyone is a necessary social evolution.

"The need to convert healthcare from a profit driven commodity that is beyond the means of the less fortunate to a "right" for everyone is a necessary social evolution."




1. As of 1986, under President Reagan, every single man, woman, and child in the nation had healthcare.
Clearly, you are talking through your chapeau.



2. "... a profit driven commodity..."
The use of this phrase indicates one totally immune to learning of the most basic variety.

It is only through capitalism that the United States had, prior to ObamaCare, the finest healthcare system in the world.

a. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05


b. In "The Business of Health," Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30



In your honor, and with you in 'mind'.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAvBb-hnlIc]If I Only Had A Brain with lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

Who would ever have guessed that the Republican plan drawn up to oppose "Hilarycare" and implemented by Romney in MA were a "long-standing communist program"?

Once again a Dumbocrat illustrates their profound ignorance of not being able to differentiate between the federal government and a state government.

Just curious [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], will there ever be a day when you dumb-fuck Dumbocrats figure out that the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the people without exception, but outlines the size, scope, and limitations of the federal government only and not the state and city governments?

That's one of many things so comical about you buffoons. You could actually the radical communism you crave at the state and local sectors. But you're just too dumb to realize it, so you keep doing it at the federal level (well, that and the fact that you realize without being able to force hard working conservatives to pay in, your dream will fail rapidly at the state and local level where conservatives can choose to opt out of your failed policies and ideology).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obamacare requires insurance companies to increase their medical loss ratios to 85%, or refund the shortfall to policyholders. By contrast, Medicare's medical loss ratio is at 98%.

And remind me again where Obama derives the power to tell a private company anything? Oh wait - that's right, you can't.

So you'll do what every Dumbocrat when they've lost a debate built on facts, you'll respond with some nonsensical response like "we the people" or "the Supreme Court said so". It would be rolling on the floor hysterical if your ignorance wasn't so tragic.

If you believe the Supreme Court is nonsense then you believe the Constitution is nonsense.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Take away the inflammatory rhetoric and we most certainly are, PC. The need to convert healthcare from a profit driven commodity that is beyond the means of the less fortunate to a "right" for everyone is a necessary social evolution.

First of all [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION], who the fuck are you to make that declaration?

Second, and much more important, if that's the way you feel - get up off of your lazy fuck'n ass, start a hospital, and provide healthcare as a "right" to those "less fortunate".

Or, get up off of your lazy fuck'n ass, become a doctor yourself, and provide healthcare as a "right" to those "less fortunate".

See how the free market works? The freedom to make your beliefs come to fruition without impeding on my freedoms and fucking up my healthcare.

But you're far too fuck'n lazy to do anything yourself. You want to make me do it for you. Pathetic.

Perhaps [MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION] can explain how his "family values" embrace making a profit off a sick child and driving the parents into bankruptcy?

 

[P@triot]

Proving you wrong is the cake. Watching you writhe in denial is the icing.

btw, over in another thread you said that an elderly person with macular degeneration could not receive treatment unless the sight in the eye was totally gone...

...here you say that all that person would have to do is go to the hospital, declare their condition an emergency, and they could then not be denied treatment.

Question: Which is it?

Speaking of "writhing in denial" [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION], I've noticed you've run from post #152. I wonder why that is...?

(Actually, I don't wonder at all - that was sarcasm. We both know it's because it's the knock out blow that proves you're a buffoon ).