• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Are the Lib Justices this clueless?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child -- (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/29/if_obamacare_goes_will_america_let_him_die_113660.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,550
Reaction score
729
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:

One would think so. But we know that common sense is in short
supply in government. :?

I also think they have no concept of THE REAL WORLD. :cry:
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

So you don't like paying for the illegals and uninsured, but want the taxpayer to pay for both through obamacare?

Makes perfect sense, but only if you are a liberal/progressive
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Tam said:
And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:

This is what happens when a half-s$$ed minority biatch with a chip on her shoulder is APPOINTED to the SCOTUS.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

What's wrong with the logical option; While nobody should have to leave the hospital with a still-broken arm, nobody that leaves the hospital with a repaired arm should leave without a bill.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

Dont be so hard on kolo=jingo=lulu=allie,,,,after all she is confused as to what sex she is
kolo woman :D :D :D
jingo man??? :D
lulu woman
allie woman :D :D
Just can't make up her/his mind

lol
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

So what you are saying is that Obama appointed a Justice that is not smart enough to know children are not dieing because their parents don't have insurance. :wink:
Wouldn't it be nice if the man that was sold to US voters as very smart would surround himself with actual SMART people instead of people that are in so far over their head that they have to ask stupid question that the average person knows the answer to? :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Either way, with, or without Obamacare health insurance, the public will be paying for emergency room visits by the indigent.

For those that cannot afford Obamacare, they will be placed on Medicaid.

Same difference either way..........................................
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Mike said:
Remember......................."Life's Experiences"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

or lack of real life experiences..

when your career is academia and government services you can often get a distorted view of reality..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

if the law is upheld who will pay for the low/no income subsidies required to give everyone health care..

who will pay for the additional doctor visits for non - emergency care for those that will get subsidized or free insurance?

my bet is it is the same as it is now.. just with a larger burden on the payers...

yep I was right...


The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.

The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.

And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.

Anyone else who qualifies?

But what if you work for an employer who does offer health insurance? You’re not shopping for policies on the individual market. At least, not yet. Can you still get a subsidy?

Excellent questions. Glad you asked.

Yes, if you make less money than the poverty cutoff level, you would still be eligible for aid. The federal government will in essence guarantee that you do not have to pay more than 9.8 percent of your income for your share of health insurance costs.

so instead of relieving the burden on the taxpayers it will expand and increase the taxpayer funded burden..


Former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin has estimated that employers will have strong incentives to move as many as 35 million workers who will be eligible for premium assistance out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage provided through the exchanges because both the employers and the workers will be better off if they are able to access the large new federal subsidies available to exchange enrollees. Holtz-Eakin estimates that adding this many additional subsidized workers in the exchanges would add about $1 trillion over the next ten years to the cost projections provided by CBO.

so in effect we are only trading one taxpayer subsidy for another larger taxpayer subsidy...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Isn't there a law in the US that say a person can not be turned away from an emergency room because of lack of insurance? And shouldn't the Justice that is smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court know that? :? :roll:


Yes there is.

And that debt that is incurred due to lack of insurance is picked up by the local government and is built into the areas indigent fund....which that is paid for by local TAXES by every tax payer in that system.


So....whether you know it or not....tax payers are already paying the bill for people who have no insurance....

So you don't like paying for the illegals and uninsured, but want the taxpayer to pay for both through obamacare?

Makes perfect sense, but only if you are a liberal/progressive

they really don't get it do they?

all the liberals hear is free.... and then like magic.. we get "FREE" healthcare..

somebody will still end up paying for the subsidies for the poor, out of work, homeless, only now those same folk will get "expanded coverage"... for free.. instead of just the life preserving emergency care available now..

just think.. you will be able to pay more taxes and pay increased insurance payments so people like Sandra Fluke can have free birth control,, while she finishes her higher education and jets off on fancy vacations..

I hope she at least sends you a postcard..
 

Latest posts

Top