General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScalia Is A Heartless Ghoul - Deny Service For Those With No Insurance.
During the arguments Scalia made a scary remark during the "mandate" arguments. When the lawyer brought up the fact that the law required medical treatment for people without insurance that required a mandate Scalia made asked the following question.
He said, "Why not change it?"
To me that question was strange and interesting. He seems to imply that people without insurance should be denied service. And I do believe that the GOP does support such an idea of denial of service for no insurance. How would that work for everyone. Grayson was right the GOP plan for America would be if you get sick just die quickly. Maybe they would support what happens to horses when they break a leg.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Most of the time, in an emergency room they don't know if the person is insured or not. The man isn't just heartless he is an idiot.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Oh yea, Repo Man, or something.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/
At first blush the movie seemed kind of ridiculous. But if you look at the "direction" our politics are moving, the idea of being turned down, of simply letting those too poor die, doesn't seem like it's entirely unlikely.
It's been clear for a few decades now that they look at EVERYTHING by what it's worth. When you're sick, and you need medical care, and you don't have money, you become completely worthless to them. They got you born, you're just a figure on the bottom line of a budget somewhere, and it's time to slash you from it, even if it kills you. That is the way these slimy bastards thing, simply put.
It is why I find the pretense that right-wingers have any religion or compassion in them so completely ludicrous. Cheney never had a heart, and I just wonder if the one with which he replaced his, was also black. Right-wingers, as much as people go on our media and say "Yea, these are great, well-meaning people, we just disagree," or Godawful, nefarious people, with terrible motives and ideas.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)And you'd really expect no less from the guy who said:
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/mere_factual_innocence_is_no_reason_not_to_carry/186036.html
saras
(6,670 posts)Actual human beings are completely and utterly secondary.
northoftheborder
(7,636 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)His comments that I heard on NPR are quite literally making me ill with disgust. I had to roll out of bed at 5:30 am and pop a few ant-acid pills. I hope his dick rots and falls off.
greymattermom
(5,807 posts)euthanasia for uninsured zygote persons?
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)be slashed from the th gold standard coverage they get now to
the bare minimum most of us deal with. Cheney want's a heart
transplant, let the MF pay for it himself, and coverage of anti-rejection
drugs he'll need for the rest of his miserable life. Cutbacks for them
just like the rest of us.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Ask Bessie Smith.
ramapo
(4,776 posts)Heartless ghoul describes Scalia and all the anti-reform citizens amongst us. Of course, nearly all of these zealots have their very fine insurance and would not imagine being in the situation where you are denied coverage.
Some people want to roll the dice and not get insurance hoping nothing bad will happen. Countless others would love to have insurance but cannot get or afford it because of their circumstance.
It is really criminal what goes on in this country.
Johonny
(26,104 posts)hey forgot your insurance card and had a heart attack well to bad for you.
Some medical care is just not a big money maker, if they have to think about profits and can deny service why treat people for things that have low margin? Suddenly medical service even with insurance would start to get deny for all kind of reasons.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)For some hospitals, caring for the sick and injured is the first priority. Many hospitals have "angel funds" provided by wealthy benefactors. It is this fund that pays the bills for many poor and many children...but if money can be had they will find it.
I like to believe that in some places compassion still influences medical administration decisions...
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)These statements are simply not true.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)The question is actually a logical one given that part of the argument in defense of the ACA is the mandates of EMTALA.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It's actually part of our Constitution.
If Scalia wants to willfully ignore the mandate set upon the shoulders of those in government placed there by the very document that created it, nothing else really matters to him.
He might as well have asked why we haven't amended the Constitution.
polichick
(37,626 posts)wiggs
(8,791 posts)scotus rulings. I'm fine with that....as long as it's sound judgement based on logic and analysis. Unfortunately, he and his sidekick have proven they will bend logic and distort legal priorities in order to make a ruling consistent with his ideology.
This particular question seems relevant...but I don't trust him to put the question and answer in proper context along with all the other potential arguments. Cherry-picking is his party's forte.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...would be more than happy to pay for his doctorin'.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Do you have a link?
adigal
(7,581 posts)They have an excellent analysis from 8 to 9PM - have one tonight, also.
stopbush
(24,801 posts)Cadillac insurance policy.
My question - why not change it? Let him and the rest of the government be forced to buy their insurance on the open market.
librechik
(30,957 posts)are we going to let the likes of Scalia decide this? Really?
adigal
(7,581 posts)I see so much evil in their beliefs and desires - so much selfishness and callousness. Jesus, if he existed, is weeping at what they do in his name.