Baby denied health care, he's "too fat"

If you have to be careful with infant mortality rates. Countries don't use the same definition as others and therefore fudge their numbers.

And do you guarantee that this problem will be solved once Obama's gang gets done?

If you ban pre existing conditions and recision then yes. Because women will no longer face any of the things I just stated. They can get amneos without fear of having their children dropped from their coverage and they can get appropriate treatment on birth without fear of being dropped. They can get better pre and post natal care without any chance of the coverage going into effect later than the parents realized sticking them with the bill. Women will no longer get dropped for spousal abuse or pregnancy and babies will no longer be dropped for being obese. These immoral policies also have a chilling affect on women's and children's health and with them gone than yes it stands to reason that the infant mortality rate will improve.

Um, preemies are not less healthy or less evolved. Granted ,a lot of that depends on how early you're talking, but there are plenty of preemies that grow up to be perfectly healthy adults.

there is logic in your thinking. however, the reality of implementing such an ideal is much more inhumane than i think you realize. the nazi's said the same thing about handicaped people, jews, and homosexuals.

i'm guessing you're pro-choice.

What does a woman's right to chose what to do with her body have to do with preemies?

I was a preemie. I'm pro-choice. The two have nothing to do with one another.

GrinningSatyr,

I like how you use clever catch phrases like "a woman's right to choose" rather than the murder of a human which is what it actually is.

I find it hypocritical that so many lefties are concerned with childrens' health care, but have no problem with women sucking babies out of the womb. Seems like the priorities are a bit mixed.

@libertyforall

Dude lets not make this into an abortion debate. Roe vs. Wade is NOT going to be over turned no matter how much the religious minority wants it to.

fun_size,

I am not part of any religious minority. My views on abortion do not stem from any book. They stem from the desire to protect the individual and I was correct in pointing out the hypocrisy.

And what's the wait time?

Not too long, and if it is serious, or immediate/emergency treatment required, there is no wait time.

Same for America as of right now.

The only difference would be price, I would assume.

What about other things like a shot or a dentist?

All drugs and treatments given in hospital are free. Dentists we pay a small fee, but under 16, unemployed, elderly and pregnant women dont pay for dentists.
Prescription charges, ie from GP/doctor are about $10, but will soon be free in Scotland.

Sorry. I was asking about the wait time.

Shots when u want them, emergency dentist same or next day, regular checkup every 6 months.

i love how vague warnings of long wait times is the ONLY negative that the insurance company protectionists [aka. conservatives] can come up with to scare people about the european medical system.

it makes it even better that wait times are about the same in the US.

Would it guarantee speedy help?

lu7cky,

I am 100% against government run health care, except for children. Children cannot help the decisions of their parents and should be covered.

Even at that point, it should be covered by the state and not the federal government because the latter is unconstitutional.

I am definitely for a government run, public option. The insurance companies are big business disguised as care, they worry about nothing except the bottom line. If you take profit out of the equation, there would be no need for denials of claims based on condtions that would be costly.

lu7cky,

I find it somewhat naive that you would trust your health care system to the same people who have bankrupted this country through careless spending. Where did this faith in government come from?

Do we need reform? Yes. Do we need government ran health care? No.

LIBERTYFORALL:

op⋅tion
  /ˈɒpʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [op-shuhn] Show IPA
Use option in a Sentence
See web results for option
See images of option
–noun
1. the power or right of choosing.
2. something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3. the act of choosing.

Don't want it, don't get it. I am not so sure what is so difficult to understand about an OPTIONAL program.

hammywill,

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating just how big of a sheeple Amerians truly are. Well since the government included the word "option" it has to mean option right?

Unfortunately, your inability to critically analyze a bill would spell terrible consequences for many Americans.

The goal is not a public option. The goal is a government run health care system. Why do you think they gave small businesses the option to either provide insurance for their employees or pay an 8% tax which is far less costly? Thus, dropping those employees would force them to go on the public plan.

So you would have the vast majority of Americans on the public plan, and eventually it will just continue to evolve until it is completely government ran.

It is scary how many Americans lack the inability to think for themselves.

Then tell insurance companies to lower their prices in order to compete. If they can compete in an OPTIONAL market..maybe they don't belong there. We are not talking about a digital TV, we are talking about a system that PROFITS off of death. Literally...you will forgive me if I don't give a shit if all insurance companies go out of business. I know exactly what a public option will LEAD to..and I don't care.

hammywill,

Your hatred for insurance companies is quite illogical. Do you know why the insurance companies have been able to make profits and create an unfair system: the government. The same people you want to hand the whole health care system over to.

By the way, you should quit believing all the liberal propaganda thrown out there. Insurance companies only make a 3% on average. That is far less than most other industries.

Don't mistake my post as a statement of supporting our current system because I do not. We do not need reform. We do not need the biggest crooks in our country (the government) running this system.

Which gets back to my original point. Where did this idea that government cares about you come from?

Where did this idea that Corporations care about you any more than government?

The 3% is because the Government LIMITS their ability to raise their rates without an increase in benefits. Otherwise believe me, only about 10% of the population would be able to afford insurance in this country.

At 3% they make, literally, BILLIONS of dollars a QUARTER in PROFITS.

Lastly the idea that ANYONE pays for their OWN insurance is so ludicrous as to make me simply shake my head and laugh. When one has a Work sponsored Insurance program you are paying the barest minimal percentage for that plan. If you are UNLUCKY, you may pay as much as 30% of it on your own. But let's not pretend that health care costs are shouldered by the people that have those policies.

A single payer OPTION would be a win-win. People, Corporations and taxpayers would all pay less.

I am not sure where you get your information from, but in almost all other countries they have a socialized Health Program, and 34 of them have a higher standard of health than the US.

hammywill,

Where did I once say corporations have my best interests at heart? They don't. They care about profit. That is the difference between corporations and government. Corporations have incentive to provide quality product or else consumers will choose another source for their business. You cannot do that with government.

And your statement about insurance companies raising premiums to outrageous costs is simply flat out false. Why would they raise premiums so high that nobody will be able to afford their service? That would be a huge hit to their profits.

The total amount of profits is irrelevant. The percentage is the relevant number since that is the number that will level out the judgments across all industries.

Employers paying for parts of insurance premiums is a benefit of employment. It has absolutely nothing to do with government.

Yes, WHO ranks other health care systems ahead of us. However, you'll find their rankings are somewhat flawed; especially in the area of infant mortality rates.

We have the best quality of health care in the world. Our accessibility is what needs to be worked on. In no way does imply government should have anything to do with it.

Then by all means LIBERTY, do not opt in. I, however will. Unless you are implying I should not have the choice?

hammywill,

That is the point. There is no such thing as a choice. Only the illusion of choice. The end goal is a complete government run health care system.

Hence, the incentives I mentioned earlier about trying to make small business owners drop private insurance to just pay the tax.

Government is no different than you or I. They are as corrupt as you and I. I am not saying they are not, I am only saying they are only corrupt BECAUSE of us. If you want to do away with corruption, then do it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support either Political Party in this country. I also think Health Care is a Right.
Perhaps we disagree on that point.

hammywill,

I would disagree the government is as corrupt as you and I. They have powers that you and I do not possess. That absolute power is what breeds corruption. Not necessarily the people.

I do not believe health care is a right. I believe if you work hard enough you can obtain what you need. The truth is most people simply don't want to pay for health care because they see it as an unnecessary expense.

Even if you believe health care is a right, the last people you should want running it is the government. They have bankrupted and corrupted every single program they have ever been in charge of.

That's what he's trying to do with the reform.

They need a hero NOW.

The problem with the car companies is that they were in economic trouble. The insurance companies are as of yet in no such trouble.

he should know better than present his ideas as a cure all.

JJ, in the case of the car companies WE had every right to dictate how they operate...seeing as how we are MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS! With the Bailout, we became the majority owner..and the owner of a company can do what they want. He did not just step in and tell a company what to do...we BOUGHT it and THEN told them what to do. I don't see the problem here?

I do.

They weren't worth saving.

As Kirk said (crudely about the Klingons after they lost their moon Praxis) LET THEM DIE.

Let them fail. Failure is an option. Do you know why it is an option? Because this not a ship. If someone is drowning they do not need to take everyone with them. Let them drown. They decided that they knew what they were doing so they deserve to suffer the consequences of those actions. Helping them out has done what? Is Detroit booming?

You missed the point. The point is, you made the comment "Why doesn't Obama just tell them they can't do that like he did with the Auto indsutry." The fact is that was NOT the case with the Auto Industry. He did not just walk in there and tell them what to do.

The Merits of the bail out are a seperate issue. MY point is you were making an apples to oranges comparison.

He got them to get rid of a CEO.

He got rid of the CEO once WE OWNED THE COMPANY. As owner, we have the right to fire the CEO. Are you not following? He did not just walk into a privately owned company and force them to fire a CEO, he BOUGHT THE COMPANY and fired the CEO.

In the case of this baby...we do not OWN the Insurance company, so he could not just walk in and make them change the policy.

We didn't get rid of anyone. This isn't 1984 (book) and I sure the hell will not start talking as if it is.

I would never buy a piss poor ran car company like his ill conceived brain thought was a great idea.

HE got rid of the CEO and the time frame when he did it doesn't matter...it still happened. What rules was he playing by? A President's job isn't to run any company through the fake concept of "WE".

Either you missed the point, or you are ignoring it.

I get what you're stating.

I just don't agree.

I heard that the insurance company spy saw that baby buying one of those Crispy Creme Donut bacon cheeseburgers. The poor insurance company had no choice but to deny coverage.

Health reform now!!!! Greed and insanity can not continue to be a consideration in health care.

hahahaha!!!

Thank you! I love how some people seem to think that the health care reform has already been implemented and is causing damage...these are just ignorant people looking for reasons to justify their blind hate.

Thank you, its seems people just can't understand of what Obama is actually doing, and usually, all the blames somehow goes directly to him?

Don't give in to the madness..

Your coming off as a little racist and uninformed. I don't see what healthcare reform has to do with Obama being the first black president, and Obama is working for a bill that would make it illegal to descriminate due to preexisting conditions, so that fat could would get coverage with Obama's plan.

all he's trying to do is live up to the promises he campaigned for. people voted for him because they wanted health reform, a tax hike on the rich, re regulation of the financial system and other sectors or the economy, an end to both wars, closing Guantanomo. etc. etc.

now that he's trying to do all those things, republicans seem shocked and appalled. gimme a break. this is exactly what we all want and need.

Are you fucking high?

"THIS is just what we are in for, should Obama's healthcare pass."..."

This is happening now with privatized health care companies. This is not happening with a government sponsored or supplied universal healthcare.

If anything this story is an example of our need for a universal health care. Babies don't have this problem in Canada, Britain, France, or many of the other nations that have more cost effective healthcare that is run by their government. Out of all the non 3rd world nations, the United States is pretty much one of the very very few places where shit like this happens.

Madam, watching Fox News does not make you a knowledgeable person. This is just one of the MANY problems the american health care system is facing RIGHT NOW. President Obama has been trying to FIX these issues. Reform means an END to crap like this.

I can't help but notice a serious undertone of racism in your comments. Perhaps it is time to face the reality that white people are not the only beings on this planet.

you should check out politifact.com.

they have a whole list of promises that the president made during the campaign and how they have panned out. the majority of them are either in the works, or already done. with a bunch that haven't been addressed yet. [expectedly so] but hardly any promises have been actually broken.

i'd highly recommend spending some time learning more before you talk. cause you sound really dumb.

only a brain dead moron would not understand that this is just the thing that Obama is trying to stop. Under his plan no one would be denied coverage for any reason.

No one will be denied?

You guarantee?

I'm pretty sure the only way someone will be denied is if they need something like a heart, or other kind of serious life sustaining transplant, and they are either very very old or they have a long history of self abusive behavior that makes them a very bad candidate for receiving such organs.

Basically, people would get rejected for such things not because of budget, but because of legitimate medical reasoning.

You're denied because they think your life is worthless.

Who's on this committee of lovers?

It is not a matter of "your life is worthless." It is a matter of actual risk evaluation to see how limited resources are used. The good example for the heart transplant is that there is a person in their twenties who has an inherited heart condition but is otherwise in good health and an eighty year old person who just needs a new heart because they are old and theirs is giving out. If there is only one heart, and they both have really good odds at not having any rejection should we give it to the person who might be able to pay more for it, or should we give it to the person who is likely to live longer with a new and fully functioning heart?

I understand the answer if it were just this old useless health care.....but

If that is a question that arises after this overhaul what's changed? How will that be better if it's only the same as what exists right now?

Ah, the problem is that we need for the scenario that was described, and those like it, to occur more often in that manner. People who would be bad candidates for such procedures can "buy" what they need at the expense of a good candidate. Though I will admit, that rarely happens, something else happens that is arguably as bad and/or worse. Some people are good candidates and yet their insurance companies won't foot the bill, leaving them quite literally to often die. Fact is, most health insurance companies aren't interested in paying medical bills. They are interested in the complete opposite. Money that they pay out to an insured customer is money that they can't claim as a profit, which means stocks go down, stock owners aren't happy, and bonuses don't go out. Even people who work in medicine get shafted when they try to make legitimate claims because the companies want to make a buck.

You really should become better informed. Having a "revolution" in this case would mean going AGAINST the current Insurance companies.

Typical Obama Haters.. You don't even stop long enough to read the facts...

It's the INSURANCE company that is denying health insurance, thus denying CARE. That's OK, 18 people die each day because of no health insurance, Keep spouting your ignorance... You sound like some people did when they were against the 1964 civil rights act, and the 1965 Voters Act... You are the ignorant among the ones that are using you...

Keep listening to the lies and propaganda, make our companies unable to compete for business, allow the CEO's of insurance companies to make 57K an hour... While the Government continues to hand them 820 billion dollars to run Medicare, and an additional 400 billion for Part D.

While they have done NOTHING internally to correct themselves, they have raised cost of policies by an average 38% across the board. Not to mention that they raise rates on individuals if they become ill.. to the point where some people are expected to pay thousands of Dollars each month for their coverage.

Does it need to get to a 100 million? Well add this sweet little baby on your sign to your next teabag party and tell the TRUTH about healthcare in this country... You are Lucky if you have it... and do not by anymeans have anything wrong with you... Then you should be OK...

123 people die a day because of car accidents.
1 man is raped every 35 seconds in prison.

There are a lot of problems. It's not like you can guarantee that number you listed will be ZERO or less than if this overhaul works.

so your mad because these people wont take care of you and give you money?