Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you pissed away 30 years of premiums. thats the point.................
No, the point is that sooner or later you will need medical care. Are you married? Plan on having children?
Sooner or later? Is true. I am married I raised 4 children. The last child, we used a mid wife to save money. Couldnt afford insurance then. I paid my bills out of pocket, made payments etc.
I should not be forced into coverage I do not want or need. This entire premise by the left is for someone else to pay. Mandated coverages prove that point.
No, the point is that sooner or later you will need medical care. Are you married? Plan on having children?
Sooner or later? Is true. I am married I raised 4 children. The last child, we used a mid wife to save money. Couldnt afford insurance then. I paid my bills out of pocket, made payments etc.
I should not be forced into coverage I do not want or need. This entire premise by the left is for someone else to pay. Mandated coverages prove that point.
and i shouldn't have had to pay for two wars and tax cuts for the top 1% of the US that weren't needed and weren't wanted.
and you endangered your wife by using a midwife, imo.
That 30 year old who decides not to buy health insurance ends up needing 6-months of hospitalization. Who should pay?
He should pay for it--and I don't care if the hospital has to put a LIFE-TIME JUDGEMENT on him to get it--and they should charge interest on it also.
In fact--if the hospitals would start doing that--we wouldn't have the problems with these type people anyway. A young 30 year old is very capable of buying a CHEAP major medical policy--and there is absolutely no excuse not to do so--of course unless you think your care will be paid for by everyone else.
Makes you appreciate mandatory health insurance doesn't it?
No, the point is that sooner or later you will need medical care. Are you married? Plan on having children?
Sooner or later? Is true. I am married I raised 4 children. The last child, we used a mid wife to save money. Couldnt afford insurance then. I paid my bills out of pocket, made payments etc.
I should not be forced into coverage I do not want or need. This entire premise by the left is for someone else to pay. Mandated coverages prove that point.
and i shouldn't have had to pay for two wars and tax cuts for the top 1% of the US that weren't needed and weren't wanted.
and you endangered your wife by using a midwife, imo. if there had been an emergency, she'd have been fairly useless. but the birth didn't hurt you a bit.
(i wonder if you'd have scrimped on prostate cancer).
Can't sqeeze blood out of a stone, folks.
They want debtors prison.
They want people who are barely eeking by to pay the same taxes as Paris Hilton.
We would have prisons overflowing with people who could not pay their taxes.
That is what some want
Again, what if he's dead?
<snip>
The hospitals can't "dump" or refuse to care for patient's because of federal EMTALA laws.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
The OP does not state this was an emergency, so YES hospitals can 'dump' patients or 'transfer' (at their own cost, not a wambulance, BTW) patients to another location.
And hilariously fight tooth and nail against any sort of reform while bitching that your premiums are going up.
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya knowHI should go into the way-back machine and cover what it was originally designed for, EMERGENCIES, not 'Jimmy has the sniffles'. HI, at it's inception was also NON-PROFIT....cool huh?
BTW, guess who wins with Tort Reform? I'll give you a hint: It's not the patients, the rest of the policy holders, or the doctors.
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
Why should states be prevented from regulating their insurance markets?
<snip>
The hospitals can't "dump" or refuse to care for patient's because of federal EMTALA laws.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
The OP does not state this was an emergency, so YES hospitals can 'dump' patients or 'transfer' (at their own cost, not a wambulance, BTW) patients to another location.
And hilariously fight tooth and nail against any sort of reform while bitching that your premiums are going up.
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
BTW, guess who wins with Tort Reform? I'll give you a hint: It's not the patients, the rest of the policy holders, or the doctors.
I give up, lawyers?
Why is tort reform, law, in many states?
and i shouldn't have had to pay for two wars and tax cuts for the top 1% of the US that weren't needed and weren't wanted.
and you endangered your wife by using a midwife, imo. if there had been an emergency, she'd have been fairly useless. but the birth didn't hurt you a bit.
(i wonder if you'd have scrimped on prostate cancer).
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
Why should states be prevented from regulating their insurance markets?
That 30 year old who decides not to buy health insurance ends up needing 6-months of hospitalization. Who should pay?
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
Why should states be prevented from regulating their insurance markets?
Why should states prevent free market?
<snip>
The hospitals can't "dump" or refuse to care for patient's because of federal EMTALA laws.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
The OP does not state this was an emergency, so YES hospitals can 'dump' patients or 'transfer' (at their own cost, not a wambulance, BTW) patients to another location.
And hilariously fight tooth and nail against any sort of reform while bitching that your premiums are going up.
The 'reform' that is needed is HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform and HI companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
BTW, guess who wins with Tort Reform? I'll give you a hint: It's not the patients, the rest of the policy holders, or the doctors.
I give up, lawyers?
Why is tort reform, law, in many states?
is it? what states? and under what circumstances? what type of "reforms" were instituted?
and why are you so determined to see people injured by corporations but not compensated?
and no, it's not lawyers... you braindead twit... it's insurance companies.
and i shouldn't have had to pay for two wars and tax cuts for the top 1% of the US that weren't needed and weren't wanted.
and you endangered your wife by using a midwife, imo. if there had been an emergency, she'd have been fairly useless. but the birth didn't hurt you a bit.
(i wonder if you'd have scrimped on prostate cancer).
You didn't pay for tax cuts for anyone. It's not your money that they are keeping - it's their own.
the 'reform' that is needed is health insurance reform, not health care reform and hi companies should be allowed to sell across state lines, not adhere to rigid state 'rules'. Competition ya know
why should states be prevented from regulating their insurance markets?
the idiot doesn't understand that you won't get a particupating provider in ny if you have hi insurance.
And all that would happen if they could "sell across state lines" is that they'd all incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations... Just like banks.
'tards...
