This is a serious question for the liberals out there

[hmmmmm]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how your thinking is flawed but I'm not a liberal. Why doesn't her health insurance pay for at least some of this? Is it because the risk of the surgery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Her health insurance does pay for part of it - after a $5,000 deductible, and then 80% after that. The cost of treatments before the surgery even at 20% are more than the average person can handle, let alone the costs of the surgery once it comes.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you think WE paid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much compared to the $9 Billion a month we're paying for the Iraq fiasco.

[hmmmmm]

In no way do I support the Iraq fiasco.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so why aren't American Citizens afforded the same courtesy?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a complicated question but I think it's safe to say that providing government-assisted health care to some non-citizens isn't one of the reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, because the twins were born in the US, they are citizens.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so why aren't American Citizens afforded the same courtesy?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a complicated question but I think it's safe to say that providing government-assisted health care to some non-citizens isn't one of the reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, because the twins were born in the US, they are citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which in and of itself is ridiculous.

[hmmmmm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so why aren't American Citizens afforded the same courtesy?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a complicated question but I think it's safe to say that providing government-assisted health care to some non-citizens isn't one of the reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, because the twins were born in the US, they are citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]


Which is a major flaw in our system.

If I decided the cross the border to have a baby in Canada, will that child be entitled to life time health care?

I don't know - just asking.

[Ray Zee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how your thinking is flawed but I'm not a liberal. Why doesn't her health insurance pay for at least some of this? Is it because the risk of the surgery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Her health insurance does pay for part of it - after a $5,000 deductible, and then 80% after that. The cost of treatments before the surgery even at 20% are more than the average person can handle, let alone the costs of the surgery once it comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is more than an average person can afford, but this is an extremely expensive operation so the next question to ask is should anyone be entitled to health care at any cost just because a technique is possible to save or help them. where do you draw the line. shouild a drug addict get a million dollar operation for self inflicted disese, or a drunk for liver problems, or lung cancer for a smoker. who should pay for that, the person that takes care of themself or a tax on the products that cause these problems. maybe this is another thread

[bdypdx]

This case is all about "drama". You have this 80 person medical team devoted to separating conjoined twins which is not a significant problem in the world. (It's estimated that a few hundred pairs of conjoined twins are born globally each year. In the U.S., they occur 1 in every 200,000 live births.)

We're paying for it cuz these doctors, etc are after the limelight and glamour. Seriously, they engineered the whole deal. Not the parents. These doctors just wanted to show off. I can't blame the parents of the babies since most parents will do just about anything for the survival of their offspring, including extending visas and whatnot.

Now for your favorite teller...there's no drama there. She's in the same boat as the 43 million Americans either un- or under-insured. At the same time though, no one extending a visa is going to get a kidney transplant at taxpayer expense since kidney transplants are so commonplace.

[hmmmmm]

[ QUOTE ]

it is more than an average person can afford, but this is an extremely expensive operation so the next question to ask is should anyone be entitled to health care at any cost just because a technique is possible to save or help them. where do you draw the line. shouild a drug addict get a million dollar operation for self inflicted disese, or a drunk for liver problems, or lung cancer for a smoker. who should pay for that, the person that takes care of themself or a tax on the products that cause these problems. maybe this is another thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I am so for "personal responsibility". If you don't want to wear a motorcyle helmet, fine. But, if you crack your head because you don't have one on don't expect the government to pay for your care.

If you want to have a baby a year, fine, but don't expect the government to pay for them.

If you have the means to take care of these problems do whatever the hell you want.

People who are stupid enough to smoke (which, BTW I do) should not expect the government to pay for our health problems.

Alcoholics - if their insurance decides to pay for it they should get their liver treated with the caveat that the insurance company has the right to monitor/demand that the drinking has to stop or all future treatments will end immediately and they will have to reimburse the insurance company for past treatments.

[bdypdx]

Excellent hmmmmmmm,

You forgot to account for the fatter red states and obesity.

I don't really like my taxes going to overcome obesity; yet, I find it ok if my taxes prevent it to begin with.