Poll of the Day > This New Jersey Mom posted her Son's $231,000 HOSPITAL BILL and BLASTS TRUMP!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ali Chandra from New Jersey published her 3 y/o son's heart surgery bill to plead with the Senate not to scrap one of the key parts of Obamacare..

Her son was born with congenital heart defect known as heterotaxy which means he's required to undergo multipe life saving surgeries which has since been covered by her health insurance thanks to Obamacare's ban on benefits caps.

But Trumpcare is planning to SCRAP it in favour of his own bill but it's not clear whether it will allow insurers to reinstate the ban meaning companies don't have to pay out after medical bills pass a certain ceiling limit!!

Chandra is a registered nurse and fears that if caps are allowed to return, her son's life could be at stake as she posted the staggering $231,115 healthcare bill for his open heart surgery and recovery in the cardiac intensive care unit..but thanks to her insurance, she was only liable for $500.

Ethan needed 4 heart surgeries and require more going forward as he takes regular visits to the cardiologist, immunology, pediatrician and electrophysiologist for his pacemaker as his temperature rises above 100.4F and needs sepsis workups

He needs 5 different medications a day and none of this would be possible without insurance and that his bills exceeded the 1 MILLION dollar mark.

She wrote "As long as we have Ethan with us, and i hope with everthing that it's forever, we will need to pay for expensive medical care. A lifetime cap on benefits is the same as saying, Sorry, you're not worth keeping alive anymore. You're just too expensive"

Jimmy Kimmel also made a plea after seeing the many parents who were in his son's condition when he needed an operation for his son's heart condition and pleaded to politicians not to do away with Obamacare. He said "If your baby is going to die, it shouldn't matter how much money you make"

Chandra is one of the thousands waiting on what will happen with the updated healthcare bill as she said the fear and anxiety is palpable right now as bills are on the rise...her family would have to move to Canada as her husband is Canadian and will uproot there despite Ethan's doctors being in America who all know him and how his heart works

Do you think healthcare should be funded by the public? let's see what people think.

Chandra's Bill -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6C0A00000578-4637316-image-a-2_1498399040034.jpg

Chandra and her family -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6BF400000578-4637316-image-a-3_1498399048674.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6BD100000578-4637316-image-a-6_1498399059680.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6BE000000578-4637316-image-a-4_1498399051769.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6BDA00000578-4637316-image-a-7_1498399068277.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6BF800000578-4637316-image-a-9_1498399073878.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/25/14/41BC6C0600000578-4637316-image-a-1_1498399038525.jpg
---

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.
---

You have two choices: nationalism or individualism.

Nobody can call themselves a "patriot" or a participant of their nation and have it be true without understanding the need to strengthen the entire country. If the weakest link in the chain is only marginally weaker than the rest, you have the foundation upon which to build something great. The greater good is what matters most, and it is the responsibility of the strong to assimilate and bolster the others, culturally/socially, economically, and so on.
---

Umitencho posted...

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.

They want live babies to turn into dead soldiers.
It's always been their way-the religious angle just works best for them to get them born, then they couldn't care less until they're military age. Nothing new there.

I don't want universal healthcare because I don't want to pay taxes for some DRUG ADDICT overdosing on WEED or METH.

This kid was probably a pot head before this surgery. He brought it upon himself.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

You have two choices: nationalism or individualism.

There's also globalism, cuz I don't think Americans are better people than the rest of the world.
---

Full Throttle posted...

But Trumpcare is planning to SCRAP it in favour of his own bill but it's not clear whether it will allow insurers to reinstate the ban meaning companies don't have to pay out after medical bills pass a certain ceiling limit!!

So, let's blame Trump for something that may or may not be in a bill he hasn't even been given yet?

Umitencho posted...

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.

People just keep repeating that.... The right wants the baby taken care of after birth.... by its parents, as it should be. Also, the right donates way more money to help with those situations, as well. Meanwhile, the left wants babies/fetuses dying and wants convicted killers living.
---

Yeah keep saying while the right keeps gutting or try to gut safety nets that help families while also blasting out crappy stereotypes about single parents. the right is about as pro-family as Hitler is pro-jewish.
---

It's not a stereotype.... stats show that a child is better off with married parents. The left does everything they claim the right does.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Nobody can call themselves a "patriot" or a participant of their nation and have it be true without understanding the need to strengthen the entire country. If the weakest link in the chain is only marginally weaker than the rest, you have the foundation upon which to build something great. The greater good is what matters most, and it is the responsibility of the strong to assimilate and bolster the others, culturally/socially, economically, and so on.

God damn commies up in here!

Btw, these things aren't remotely that expensive anywhere else in the world, only the US feels fine having these massive mark ups on essential healthcare.
---

I hear Americans pay to go see their family doctor to get prescriptions for meds. So they pay to go pay. This seems so foreign to me. Why is America so backwards? It's like having a bunch of cavemen to the south of me. They rape pillage and kill for fun and take care of no one but themselves.
---

SinisterSlay posted...

I hear Americans pay to go see their family doctor to get prescriptions for meds. So they pay to go pay. This seems so foreign to me. Why is America so backwards? It's like having a bunch of cavemen to the south of me. They rape pillage and kill for fun and take care of no one but themselves.

A gradual slide back into conservatism through the 1964 election, feds actually addressing racial issues, and the Vietnam War made conservatism viable again. It has been a general slide with a few bumps since then.
---

Umitencho posted...

SinisterSlay posted...

I hear Americans pay to go see their family doctor to get prescriptions for meds. So they pay to go pay. This seems so foreign to me. Why is America so backwards? It's like having a bunch of cavemen to the south of me. They rape pillage and kill for fun and take care of no one but themselves.

A gradual slide back into conservatism through the 1964 election, feds actually addressing racial issues, and the Vietnam War made conservatism viable again. It has been a general slide with a few bumps since then.

I don't even know what that means lol
---

Umitencho posted...

safety nets

guesswho33 posted...

donates

There's a difference.

guesswho33 posted...

The right wants the baby taken care of after birth.... by its parents, as it should be.

And if the parents can't take care of it?
---

Umitencho posted...

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.

---

mastermix3000 posted...

Umitencho posted...

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.

ahem..

guesswho33 posted...

The right wants the baby taken care of after birth.... by its parents, as it should be.

adjl posted...

And if the parents can't take care of it?

https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/2/2b/Cookieville.jpg/revision/latest

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/2/2b/Cookieville.jpg/revision/latest

I used to be a fan of the "you should just give it up for adoption" argument against abortion, but that was before I realized that the vast majority of the people using it (myself included) are hypocrites that have no intention of ever adopting themselves and are ignoring how desperately overwhelmed the system already is. So I've stopped taking it seriously unless the person using it is somebody who actually has or is planning to adopt, or is otherwise doing something to significantly improve the quality of foster children's lives. Putting the baby up for adoption doesn't magically fix any concerns about the kid's quality of life, which is the forefront consideration in aborting. It's just a convenient way for people to brush off those concerns while still holding the perceived moral high ground of wanting that kid born at all costs.
---

adjl posted...

Putting the baby up for adoption doesn't magically fix any concerns about the kid's quality of life, which is the forefront consideration in aborting.

A ward of the state is more likely to receive adequate nutrition.

The real solution, however, is over-the-counter contraception that isn't mostly just condoms.

Questionmarktarius posted...

A ward of the state is more likely to receive adequate nutrition.

And that's about where the benefits stop.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The real solution, however, is over-the-counter contraception that isn't mostly just condoms.

I'd take that a step further and suggest subsidized birth control. Colorado tried a pilot program for that that reduced unwanted pregnancies by a staggering 40%, which is a whole lot better than having unwanted pregnancies to abort (while I do consider abortion to be an acceptable last resort, it is an absolute last resort that should only be used when serious birth control efforts have failed, not in place taking birth control seriously). Sadly, most of the pro-life people are more interested in seeing those dirty, dirty sex-havers punished for all their dirty sex-having than in actually solving the problem.
---

So are we comparing a $200,000 hospital bill that literally none of us could afford to a single woman with a part time job at McDonald's trying to raise 2 kids?
---

adjl posted...

I'd take that a step further and suggest subsidized birth control.

Take that a step further, and make it mandatory as a condition of receiving public assistance.

KStateKing17 posted...

So are we comparing a $200,000 hospital bill that literally none of us could afford to a single woman with a part time job at McDonald's trying to raise 2 kids?

A more useful course of action is figuring out why the hell it costs $200000, and fixing that.

Questionmarktarius posted...

adjl posted...

I'd take that a step further and suggest subsidized birth control.

Take that a step further, and make it mandatory as a condition of receiving public assistance.

That's just eugenics, so not so much.

Questionmarktarius posted...

A more useful course of action is figuring out why the hell it costs $200000, and fixing that.

The current American insurance system, mostly. Prices are inflated because insurance companies typically negotiate them down by a lot, and because the big scary numbers make people feel that insurance is absolutely mandatory. The fact that the US government spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world when it doesn't even have a proper health care system should really be a wake up call for the people that think it doesn't need an overhaul.
---

adjl posted...

That's just eugenics, so not so much.

That's a bit of a stretch.

MICHALECOLE posted...

I don't want universal healthcare because I don't want to pay taxes for some DRUG ADDICT overdosing on WEED or METH.

This kid was probably a pot head before this surgery. He brought it upon himself.

You already do, twice (once at the insurance level, and again at the care level). And then multiplied for overblown charges (like several hundred dollars for saline).

Any increase in taxes that would result from this would be offset by not having to pay an insurance company, or the things the insurance company does not cover.

Questionmarktarius posted...

adjl posted...

That's just eugenics, so not so much.

That's a bit of a stretch.

"You're not allowed to reproduce unless you have $X" is pretty clearly eugenics.
---

adjl posted...

Prices are inflated because insurance companies typically negotiate them down by a lot

Almost certainly that.
Bill $100, but only get paid $33, you're billing $300 next time.

However, if you follow inflating costs backwards, the three biggest instigators are the inability to divert emergency care, a drastic increase in malpractice lawsuits (and thus a drastic increase in malpractice insurance costs) in the 90s, and then a string of high-profile lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies soon after (and ongoing).

Tort reform would clear a bunch of this shit up, immediately.

$360 for an EKG

Those are done by a tech that makes around ~$15 an hour and the procedure takes 5-10 minutes
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

adjl posted...

Prices are inflated because insurance companies typically negotiate them down by a lot

Almost certainly that.
Bill $100, but only get paid $33, you're billing $300 next time.

However, if you follow inflating costs backwards, the three biggest instigators are the inability to divert emergency care, a drastic increase in malpractice lawsuits (and thus a drastic increase in malpractice insurance costs) in the 90s, and then a string of high-profile lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies soon after (and ongoing).

Tort reform would clear a bunch of this shit up, immediately.

Well, medical malpractice is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. So most of those lawsuits are probably justified.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think healthcare should be funded by the Public?

No, of course not.

Umitencho posted...

The right have never been truly pro-life. Once you give birth, as far as they are concerned, you and the child are now a burden unless said child is heir to a massive fortune or historical legacy.

Which literally has nothing to do with pro-life. Pro-life means nothing more than not murdering people. It doesn't mean that the state becomes the child's nanny, parent, etc.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

You have two choices: nationalism or individualism.

Nobody can call themselves a "patriot" or a participant of their nation and have it be true without understanding the need to strengthen the entire country. If the weakest link in the chain is only marginally weaker than the rest, you have the foundation upon which to build something great. The greater good is what matters most, and it is the responsibility of the strong to assimilate and bolster the others, culturally/socially, economically, and so on.

That's not what patriotism entails.
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

I don't want universal healthcare because I don't want to pay taxes for some DRUG ADDICT overdosing on WEED or METH.

This kid was probably a pot head before this surgery. He brought it upon himself.

idk, in general it makes more sense trying to treat adults than it does kids because we've already invested considerable resources in getting them to adulthood. And, in many cases, kids born with congenital health defects which become a problem this soon tend to either recur or are continuous. If we cold clean somebody up for a few grand and make them productive, it's a better ROI than paying several hundred thousand to raise a child to adulthood.

Umitencho posted...

Yeah keep saying while the right keeps gutting or try to gut safety nets that help families while also blasting out crappy stereotypes about single parents.

Then the parents should surrender their children to the state so the children can be re-assigned to guardians who are actually capable people. If you can't even take care of yourself, you shouldn't be raising a kid and ultimately that kid will suffer for it.

guesswho33 posted...

It's not a stereotype.... stats show that a child is better off with married parents. The left does everything they claim the right does.

Yes, it's very well-documented that two-parent homes are broadly superior to single-parent homes. It's not really a controversial statement.

SinisterSlay posted...

I hear Americans pay to go see their family doctor to get prescriptions for meds. So they pay to go pay.

I'm impressed that your doctors can apparently diagnose a problem and prescribe something without seeing a patient.

adjl posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/2/2b/Cookieville.jpg/revision/latest

I used to be a fan of the "you should just give it up for adoption" argument against abortion, but that was before I realized that the vast majority of the people using it (myself included) are hypocrites that have no intention of ever adopting themselves and are ignoring how desperately overwhelmed the system already is. So I've stopped taking it seriously unless the person using it is somebody who actually has or is planning to adopt, or is otherwise doing something to significantly improve the quality of foster children's lives. Putting the baby up for adoption doesn't magically fix any concerns about the kid's quality of life, which is the forefront consideration in aborting. It's just a convenient way for people to brush off those concerns while still holding the perceived moral high ground of wanting that kid born at all costs.

Overlooking that the system has hurdles in place which prevent adoption and make it unappealing, the fact that you personally aren't willing to do something shouldn't be used as a justification for something not being done, particularly because adoption IS widely practiced in the US and it's so widely practiced that we take in children from overseas.
---

adjl posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

adjl posted...

That's just eugenics, so not so much.

That's a bit of a stretch.

"You're not allowed to reproduce unless you have $X" is pretty clearly eugenics.

Except what he's described clearly isn't a eugenics argument. Also, the idea that you shouldn't have kids that you can't afford is pretty clearly common sense.
---

Ummm didn't insurance pay most of that bill? Looks like she only owes $500 for the whole thing or am I misreading?

Go_Totodile posted...

Ummm didn't insurance pay most of that bill? Looks like she only owes $500 for the whole thing or am I misreading?

She's worried about caps possibly being restored which would have made her liability far more, which involves a lot of "ifs and buts" in general.
---

Zeus posted...

I'm impressed that your doctors can apparently diagnose a problem and prescribe something without seeing a patient.

They see us just fine. Walk in, get diagnosed, walk out, go pay for meds.
Why would I pay the doctor just to write scribbles on a piece of paper? Honestly when was the last time a family doctor did anything more than write scribbles on a piece of paper?
---

SinisterSlay posted...

Zeus posted...

I'm impressed that your doctors can apparently diagnose a problem and prescribe something without seeing a patient.

They see us just fine. Walk in, get diagnosed, walk out, go pay for meds.
Why would I pay the doctor just to write scribbles on a piece of paper? Honestly when was the last time a family doctor did anything more than write scribbles on a piece of paper?

You're not paying him to write scribbles on a piece of paper. You're paying for him to inspect you, use his decades of expertise to rule out problems until he's found the correct condition, and then prescribe a medication that works best for you given your personal and family history. Frankly, I'm not sure you really understand how doctors work. By your logic, you could scribble something down on a piece of paper yourself and get meds.
---

Zeus posted...

SinisterSlay posted...

Zeus posted...

I'm impressed that your doctors can apparently diagnose a problem and prescribe something without seeing a patient.

They see us just fine. Walk in, get diagnosed, walk out, go pay for meds.
Why would I pay the doctor just to write scribbles on a piece of paper? Honestly when was the last time a family doctor did anything more than write scribbles on a piece of paper?

You're not paying him to write scribbles on a piece of paper. You're paying for him to inspect you, use his decades of expertise to rule out problems until he's found the correct condition, and then prescribe a medication that works best for you given your personal and family history. Frankly, I'm not sure you really understand how doctors work. By your logic, you could scribble something down on a piece of paper yourself and get meds.

Why would i pay for that though?
---

I mean... The Iraq war was cool and all, but the every day American would've probably been happier to get health care or college covered instead of a phony war.
---

It's absolutely disgusting how expensive medical care is in this country.

I'm lucky in that my job has pretty good insurance... but it's a shitty job that I don't want to do forever... yet I stay there because I'm terrified of not having health coverage.
---