It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good thing Rep. Giffords has that 'Cadilac' health care plan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Not to disparage her in any way. I think she's a lovely young woman who seems to be very likable and moderate in her positions. HOWEVER - it does seem to be very ironic that she is benefiting from the ultimate of all 'Cadillac' health care plans NOT the plan that she voted to give to the rest of us lowly peasant scum. If she would have been cared for under this crappy ass Obamacare that SHE VOTED FOR and said she would AGAIN we would be talking about what a great girl she WAS instead of wishing her a speedy recovery. I hope I'm not out of line... Thoughts?




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


Nah! You're not out of line! Most of us would love to see another day if shot in the head. But thank goodness she is alive so she can get continue to serve this great nation.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Yes, it's a good thing she made it, and even better that she didn't have the health care plan she want's for the rest of us.
edit on 14-1-2011 by EssenSieMich because: spelling



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
People with government paid jobs should get minimum wages and no benefits at all. They should make no more than 10,000 a year and have to pay for any insurance they can afford out of their own pocket. That's what they want for us, why should they have anything better. Most of these people are wealthy before they are elected anyway, let them spend their savings on getting by. Why not make all government jobs voluntary without pay if you have prior means of support. I might go as far as letting them write off their expenses for income tax purposes. Forget the pensions for sure.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


Right! And then they have the outrageous gall to call themselves 'servants'. One thing is for sure, these representative including Giffords could have voted to give themselves the same Obamacare that they want for the rest of us but when they were presented with that option they voted it down.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Under U.S. Code, Title 42, chapter 7, subchapter 18, part e, section 1395dd, hospitals must stabilize a patient that arrives in their emergency room in a verifiable emergency condition regardless of ability to pay or whether covered by insurance or not:


§ 1395dd. Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor
(a) Medical screening requirement In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor (1) In general If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either— (A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or (B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

--and--

(h) No delay in examination or treatment
A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection (b) of this section in order to inquire about the individual’s method of payment or insurance status.


So unless you're saying that the representative received preferrential treatment, was more worthy of being saved than any other individual with the same injury, and that the hospital would've let anyone other than her die, your claim of her health insurance coverage is irrelevant.


edit on 1/14/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Stabilizing an emergency patient is a whole lot different then the care and aftercare that these 'Cadillac' patients will get. An Obamacare patient may get stabilized, then they'll get thrown out on their ass. The 'Cadillac' ruling class patient will get a lifetime of TLC with private nurses and a pension - and we'll be footing the bill.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join