Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

26
Letters
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:00 AM

The Republicans vs. the injured child

How would you get by on $45,000 a year with no insurance and two kids with severe brain injuries? Maybe somebody should ask Tony Snow.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Thursday, October 11, 2007 03:42 PM

Preexesting conditions

The whole concept of denying health care based on preexisting conditions shouldn't even be legal. It sounds like something dreamed up by the devil himself, how lawmakers have allowed this to be a part of our "health care" system is just mystifying.

Yes, a nationalized healthcare system would be ideal, but that's not going to happen, so if politicians are at all serious about reforming our health care system, even if it's just tinkering around the edges, then eliminating the evil concept of denying care based on preexisting conditions should be at the top of their list. Doctors should be concerned about preexisting conditions for one reason only, so they can better treat you.

Thursday, October 11, 2007 03:33 PM

they don't care

the republicans don't care. if any of them claims to care about the underprivileged, they're lying. the recent study exposed bush's malapropisms were the result of his meager attempts to sound 'compassionate', i.e. as if he cared. tony snow has his wealth and he couldn't care less about anyone else. these republicans (i.e. nazis) believe in a model of social construct where the righteous get everything they want, including huge amounts of money, and the poor or underprivileged deserve their condition.

these persons have no concept of compassion, or sympathy. if it didn't happen to them, then it didn't happen. tony snow (and the rest of those republican pricks) completely believes he deserves his money and to hell with everyone else. he is cetainly not giving up one single penny of his ill-gotten gains in the form of smaller tax cuts for the wealthy, or less social security benefits for the rich, to help someone less fortunate, because in his mind 'less fortunate' is a misnomer. the fortunate are rich and the less fortunate are just the poor people who deserve to be poor, for whatever reason, i.e. black, asian, hispanic, female, disabled, anything other than white male republican in the united states.

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:31 PM

Cut Tony Snow some slack

Even though I think he's a sniveling flack, the guy does have cancer, and even with so-called "full coverage" health care these days, it's expensive to maintain treatment. Further, he could die any day -- think how quickly Peter Jennings' health deteriorated -- and he's got 5 kids to worry about. Even with a good life insurance policy, that's 5 college educations, a mortgage payment, and food on the table for at least another 15 years.

While it is ironic that the Bush administration has decided to wield its veto on a bill that almost no one but the Grover Norquists of the world would have made an issue of, it's not fair to make Snow out to be some sort of Dickensian villain. He's just the messenger, folks, don't shoot him, impeach Bush.

Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:40 AM

Well GEE!

The people wait to get health insurance (or wait to get a job where their employer provides health insurance) until they NEED it...then complain about not having it and being unable to get it? That's akin to not carrying insurance on your house then complaining about not having any when your house burns down...or not having car insurance before having a wreak and complaining about not having it after the fact.

Sorry but everyone today KNOWS they have to have health insurance and if you take your chances and don't make sure you have it BEFORE you need it, it's your own darn fault.

Thursday, October 11, 2007 08:38 AM

Mitch McConnell

Anything to the rumor that Sen McConnell distributed personal information on the Frosts to the Right Wing Blogs?

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 02:03 PM

Universal Healthcare v. insurance companies

Buried in this story is the fact that the family in question was turned down by health insurers due to pre-existing conditions. For my dollar, this should be against the law. And while we're arguing about SCHIP, we're actually arguing about a red herring, which is how the health care industry is administered in the nation. Via insurance companies. Get rid of them; nationalize healthcare. It's time. It's more than time. It's the only solution to the problem. Where are our brains? What are we so afraid of? Rather, what are our politicians so afraid of?

Evelyn Sharenov, RN, BA, MS

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:09 AM

Bankruptcy!!!

The nay sayers who attack a national health care plan avoid the elephant in the room; A National Health Care Makes Good Economic Sense!!!

The number one cause of bankruptcy in American is (drum roll here)… unexpected health care expenses, often caused by denial of claims by HMOs (because of pre-existing conditions that the insured should have known they had), denial of insurance all together by HMOs (usually due to pre-existing conditions that are documented), and deductibles that cause even an approved claim to be financially devastating (due to the unconscionable price gouging perpetrated by the America medical industry in general). Who gets hit with the bankruptcy bill (drum roll again)… the tax payer. And who's more likely to declare bankruptcy (drum roll again)… small businesses. So not having a national health care plan actually increases taxes, and cost lots jobs, because a lot of Americans work in small businesses (either in the small businesses they own, or that they are employed by). Imagine losing your job because your employer can't cover his medical bills for his brain damaged daughter, and then getting hit with a tax hike to cover your ex-employer's bankruptcy.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:11 AM

Just asking

Which other western country denies its citizens public health insurance? George Dubya, you are leading the largest member of the third world. Be poud of it vetoing Dumbo.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 09:59 AM

Quick Question: Who Pays The Hospitals If The Patient Defaults On Their Bill?

I want to beat Republicans over the head with this question!

If the kid got no assistance and continued to get worse and worse until he was at death's door --- and then treated at the ER -- and the family defaulted on the bill, then how did the hospital get paid?

Who paid the x-ray tech?

Who paid the nurses?

Who paid the ER doctors that preformed life saving surgery?

Who paid?

This insane idea Republicans have that somehow if they just leave it all up to private insurance companies then magically everyone somehow gets "paid" is BS.

There is no free lunch.

The hospitals are required by law and medical ethics to treat everyone in an emergency situation -- regardless of ability to pay!

So what happens when a hospital spends $75,000 saving a child life and the broke family can never pay the bill?

Who pays?

How does the hospital get enough money to keep paying the surgeons and nurses?

Simple, they raise your rates for health services to compensate!

That's why a sprained pinky finger costs $1,900 to treat.

(Why are Republicans so bad at math and basic economics?)

Most Active Letters Threads

359

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
323

Tough-guy John Bolton, hiding under his bed

As usual, right-wing pseudo-warriors are drowning in extreme cowardice.
188

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
154

Phil Carter's resignation from key detainee policy post

Many of the "War on Terror" policies he spent years condemning were ones expressly embraced by Obama.
99

Palin, Prejean: Beastly treatment for beauties

The governor turned author must fight what the pageant queen learned: Politics and hotness make strange bedfellows

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon