The right will love this reasoning!

[ron4342]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I bet the right would love your idea

 

[tyroneweaver]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision


you guys horror stories have about as much basis in fact as wmd's in iraq. amazing how the 2 parallel each other

 

[dblack]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

 

[dblack]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

 

[RDD_1210]

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

and if they refuse to get coverage = let them die?

Is this what you're saying...

No. That's not I would do. How about you?

So what would you do with people who insist they don't need health insurance?

 

[edthecynic]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision

The ACA had nothing to do with it, you lying POS!

And the girl got her lungs, at the expense of someone else in need, and they failed within hours because it was an adult lung and she was 11 years old. Normally you have to be 12 to get an adult lung. So the girl was given a second adult lung, costing a second needy person a lung. Whenever you move someone up on the list someone else must be moved down, in this case the girl cost 2 needy people their lungs.

Kathleen Sebelius at center of storm over child?s lung transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

Some experts agree that the lung allocation policy may need to be revisited; it has been for kidney and liver transplants. But they say no snap decisions should be made because of the media glare.
“Should Sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said NYU bioethicist Art Caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.
Transplant policy in the U.S. is made and administered by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network working with the United Network for Organ Sharing under contract with HHS. It’s inherently charged and complex because there aren’t enough organs for everyone who needs them, and people do die waiting.

While Sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a May 31 letter to the procurement network, her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told Sebelius that “t simply takes your signature” to help this child.
Caplan said: “It isn’t clear no matter how many congressmen yell at Secretary Sebelius that she has the ability to do anything.”
Setting transplant policy is complicated. OPTN has expert committees that draft proposals and submit them for public comment. Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement or reconsideration, according to a summary of the regulations by OPTN.
The policy that the Murnaghan and their advocates are questioning is one that puts children under 12 at the bottom of the waiting list for lungs from adult donors. Young children would be first in line for lungs donated by kids their age. But far fewer of those are available.

snip/

Caplan noted one reason that may give Sebelius pause: by moving someone up the list, someone else goes down. One child saved could mean another child dies. Sebelius, he noted, “doesn’t have all the information.”

 

[Old Rocks]

why would us righties need to do that. the aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision

The ACA had nothing to do with it, you lying POS!

And the girl got her lungs, at the expense of someone else in need, and they failed within hours because it was an adult lung and she was 11 years old. Normally you have to be 12 to get an adult lung. So the girl was given a second adult lung, costing a second needy person a lung. Whenever you move someone up on the list someone else must be moved down, in this case the girl cost 2 needy people their lungs.

Kathleen Sebelius at center of storm over child?s lung transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

Some experts agree that the lung allocation policy may need to be revisited; it has been for kidney and liver transplants. But they say no snap decisions should be made because of the media glare.
“Should Sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said NYU bioethicist Art Caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.
Transplant policy in the U.S. is made and administered by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network working with the United Network for Organ Sharing under contract with HHS. It’s inherently charged and complex because there aren’t enough organs for everyone who needs them, and people do die waiting.

While Sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a May 31 letter to the procurement network, her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told Sebelius that “t simply takes your signature” to help this child.
Caplan said: “It isn’t clear no matter how many congressmen yell at Secretary Sebelius that she has the ability to do anything.”
Setting transplant policy is complicated. OPTN has expert committees that draft proposals and submit them for public comment. Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement or reconsideration, according to a summary of the regulations by OPTN.
The policy that the Murnaghan and their advocates are questioning is one that puts children under 12 at the bottom of the waiting list for lungs from adult donors. Young children would be first in line for lungs donated by kids their age. But far fewer of those are available.

snip/

Caplan noted one reason that may give Sebelius pause: by moving someone up the list, someone else goes down. One child saved could mean another child dies. Sebelius, he noted, “doesn’t have all the information.”

But none of this matters to the rightwing nutters. It is a handy stick with which to attack the ACA and President Obama. Matters not how illogical the attack is in the face of facts. Facts do not exist in the alternative reality of the rightwingnuts.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

Ron Paul does. He said as much at the prez debates. He suggested that someone who is ill and without insurance go to a local church and ask for their charity or ask their families for help, presuming automatically that a family can help. Now doesn't that sound like great domestic policy?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

Not if they end up at the ER and their problem ends up on your bill after the hospital and insurance companies pass those costs on to their policy holders. And THAT is EXACTLY how it works.

You think the Pentagon can inflate the cost of something? Docs and hospitals charge as much as 2000% (not a typo) over the retail, uninsured cost of a Rx drug if you just walked in the phucking pharmacy and bought it with a script.

 

[percysunshine]

Left wing projection alert!

Millions of people are not going to have healthcare next year because Healthcare.gov is a disaster. People will be dying in the streets and the left is just fine with that because it will represent Progress.

 

[birddog]

why would us righties need to do that. The aca is already doing that. Remember the little girl that needed the heart lung transplant and kalthleen the nazi sebelious turned her back on her and a federal judge had to overturn the aca supporters decision

the aca had nothing to do with it, you lying pos!

And the girl got her lungs, at the expense of someone else in need, and they failed within hours because it was an adult lung and she was 11 years old. Normally you have to be 12 to get an adult lung. So the girl was given a second adult lung, costing a second needy person a lung. Whenever you move someone up on the list someone else must be moved down, in this case the girl cost 2 needy people their lungs.

kathleen sebelius at center of storm over child?s lung transplant - brett norman - politico.com

some experts agree that the lung allocation policy may need to be revisited; it has been for kidney and liver transplants. but they say no snap decisions should be made because of the media glare.
“should sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said nyu bioethicist art caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.
transplant policy in the u.s. Is made and administered by the organ procurement and transplantation network working with the united network for organ sharing under contract with hhs. It’s inherently charged and complex because there aren’t enough organs for everyone who needs them, and people do die waiting.

While sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a may 31 letter to the procurement network, her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear.
rep. Tom price (r-ga.) told sebelius that “t simply takes your signature” to help this child.
Caplan said: “it isn’t clear no matter how many congressmen yell at secretary sebelius that she has the ability to do anything.”
setting transplant policy is complicated. Optn has expert committees that draft proposals and submit them for public comment. Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement or reconsideration, according to a summary of the regulations by optn.
The policy that the murnaghan and their advocates are questioning is one that puts children under 12 at the bottom of the waiting list for lungs from adult donors. Young children would be first in line for lungs donated by kids their age. But far fewer of those are available.

Snip/

caplan noted one reason that may give sebelius pause: By moving someone up the list, someone else goes down. one child saved could mean another child dies. Sebelius, he noted, “doesn’t have all the information.”

but none of this matters to the rightwing nutters. It is a handy stick with which to attack the aca and president obama. Matters not how illogical the attack is in the face of facts. Facts do not exist in the alternative reality of the rightwingnuts.

p-k-b and dumbass alert!

 

[eagle1462010]

Yawn..................

Riddle me this...............

Which party STOLE money from Medicare to pay for the ACA......................

Which party is causing Americans to pay more for insurance................

But the GOP will simply kill Americans and throw their bodies in the streets.

What a bunch of Rhetorical BS.

 

[Sunshine]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

Where did THIS troll come from?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. ...

How about we just leave it up to the people involved to decide what to do in that case? Is letting people think for themselves an alien concept these days?

^ racist


amiright? He's against ObamaCare so he must be a racist

 

[JakeStarkey]

Left wing projection alert!

Millions of people are not going to have healthcare next year because Healthcare.gov is a disaster. People will be dying in the streets and the left is just fine with that because it will represent Progress.

The health insurance industry got between the sick and their doctors, and many were denied treatment, denied insurance, and allowed to die.

Folks are simply suggesting that if we simply allow the dumb young to die in the street because they made stupid choices, (1) we improve the genetic pool and (2) no one gets rich at denying after care the dumb young refused to get earlier.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Left wing projection alert!

Millions of people are not going to have healthcare next year because Healthcare.gov is a disaster. People will be dying in the streets and the left is just fine with that because it will represent Progress.

The health insurance industry got between the sick and their doctors, and many were denied treatment, denied insurance, and allowed to die.

Folks are simply suggesting that if we simply allow the dumb young to die in the street because they made stupid choices, (1) we improve the genetic pool and (2) no one gets rich at denying after care the dumb young refused to get earlier.

^ Nanny State Government Knows Best

 

[Stephanie]

Here is a thought the right will love. Rather than forcing young people who refuse to buy health insurance to buy insurance, let's pass a law that if a person refuses to insure themselves because of their not wanting to be forced to buy insurance and if they have a serious problem they can not pay for they should be thrown out on the street and allowed to die in the gutter. Is it fair for them to refuse to buy insurance and then to expect others to pay for them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. If they can buy insurance but refuse to they should be allowed to die rather than pulling others into bankrupcy to save their sorry asses. After all, what they are doing is betting they will not have a serious accident or illness. However, when you bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If they don't want to buy insurance and they can't pay the hospital bill, let them pay with their lives. The right should really love this idea.

some of you live in the wrong country

when is it this FEDERAL governments job to FORCE something on the people of this country?

I bet you have your Obama brown shirts pressed and jack boots shined....now go out there and FORCE YOUNG to buy some stinking insurance

you govenment sheep will be the end of our freedoms

as for your spew, it was stupid and not one thing to love about it

 

[regent]

Yep, I can see the headlines now, Democrats refuse help to dying man.
Perhaps the Court has already ruled on this kind of Republican solution?