Bob Curtin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:12:52 -0400, Theorem
> <Theorem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Nobody is ever turned away from a hospital in the United States.
>>>>Next?
>>
>>Right, no one is turned away from the *emergency room* (even though
>>Bush tried to axe that policy). But if you do not have insurance or an
>>HMO member****p, you can whistle in the wind for preventive care,
>>checkups, and the like unless you are willing to shell out the huge
>>costs upfront out of your pocket, which is something the typical
>>working family cannot afford to do.
>>
>
> Then why are you having children you cannot afford to provide health
> care for? You think that just because you CAN produce offspring that
> you SHOULD? Do you have some innate right to breed without any
> attention to how you're going to provide for the offspring?
What an idiotic statement. That is so stupid.
>>I know my own doctor's office visit 10-minute checkup fee is $200. I'm
>>only one person, not a family of four or five or six or more. Imagine
>>the cost to such a family to get checked out a couple or few times a
>>year. Impossible for most to afford. Of course, the rich do not care
>>about this and rich lawmakers seem to care even less.
>>
>
> If your doctor is taking only ten minutes to do a physical and is
> charging you $200, then you need to get yourself another doctor. That
> man is a quack.
Another stupid, ignorant statement.
>>So the unfortunately uninsured family has to wait until there's a real
>>problem that needs attention in the emergency room before they can
>>obtain treatment or even an examination. By then it may be too late.
>>
>
> Again, if you can't afford health insurance you shouldn't be getting
> married and having children. Nobody has the right to force others to
> subsidize their irresponsibility.
I see. According to your bent logic, only wealthy individuals should
have children.
>>This is not something for us to be proud of in America. What a
>>superpower! Unable to see to the well-being of its ordinary citizens.
>>Perfectly willing to tax them, but not willing to insure their health.
>
>
> You want it both ways. You want to be able to sue physicians and
> hospitals at will for unimaginably large amounts of money, forcing
> doctors and hospitals to settle and when they go on to perform hosts
> of tests, procedures and mandates designed to do nothing more than
> cover their ***** and you wail that you want affordable health care.
Whoa, another off-base idiot statement. Who, exactly, is the "you"
referred to in your inane posts? Who said anything about suing
physicians? not me. I've never sued a physician.
But now that you've brought it up, if the medical establishement would
get rid of the very few percent of physicians who are responsible for
the vast majority of malpractice cases, then health care would be more
affordable. Now that you mention it.
You might be interested (or not) to know that fewer than 1% of injured
patients sue over it. You should leanr something about what you're
talking about before you go spouting off like a fool.
> You want to hamstring the businesses which produce medical hardware
> and drugs with unbelievably restrictive and expensive regulations and
> expect to pay chickenfeed for their use.
Who is the "you" in your ignorant rant?
> You listen to fools like John Kerry who claim that health care is some
> sort of "right," and you wonder why there are more people becoming
> lawyers than doctors. There are certain disciplines, such as
> obstetrics, which are in dire need of doctors because lawsuits have
> driven practitioners out of the practice. Yet you blame everyone else
> for the state of affairs. Heaven forbid you should look in the mrror
> and get a good look at who's responsible.
Who is the "you" in your ignorant rant? Not me. I never said I was
married. I said I was one person, not a family of five or six. I never
mentioned anything about listening to John Kerry (or anyone else), so
who could that "you" be in your unintelligent rant?
Maybe you should get a clue.
|
