Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How to you reconcile this post with the fact that the number one reason people petition for bankruptcy is medical debt.
They start with a conclusion and make up whatever story lets them justify that position and still sleep at night.
They really, really hate the idea that at some point in their lives, they might have to help someone else. Of course, they're fine with other people helping them when they need it, but that's beside the point. But they realize that if no one ever helps others, people will die. So they tell themselves nice little lies, like that there are no children dying from lack of insurance (the actual number was about 1000/year prior to ACA), or that charity will take of everything (ridiculous and provably false).
Not seeing the issue. The new healthcare plan looks to gut services.
He's not wrong.
He clearly has a very strong opinion about it, given his current family situation, and surely Trump and his supporters aren't "snowflakes" and can handle a little criticism of the chatter coming out of DC about healthcare reform.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Almost all hospitals receive federal funds and are required to have some free care for cancer and reduced cost services available. These services are targeted for those who have no health insurance, have cancer, and aren't eligible for medicaid or medicare. Check with the financial services dept at the hospital...and ask to apply for free care.
Stop listening to liberal b.s.
People still enter bankruptcy over health-care bills. I nearly did. I only had $1000 in my name when I had emergency gallbladder removal survey two days before my mother's birthday. Due to living with my parents and having no kids, I didn't apply for Medicaid through Arizona and I didn't have a part-time job that I could earn benefits. My parents paid for health insurance for me but it was a high deductible because I was 26 at the time and aged out. I maxed out the out of pocket witu all the nickel and diming that hospitals do with not alerting you that they are using out of network doctors and the $400 as prime and stool softeners when you aren't even allowed to eat for two whole days like I was.
I was contemplating suicide over the bill because I had no ******* way of paying for it otherwise. The silver-lining, I found a job that paid enough to pay it off. In August. It will be paid off finally. Now I have a full time job that I am covered under my employer plan free of charge.
I'm a little confused - Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian and late-night host. And he was talking about a personal experience, just like he did at the time of Don Rickles' death. He is not an investigative journalist. He's not expected to research medical outcomes across the entire country.
By the way, part of the issue is not only whether the operation would be denied, but whether it would send the whole family spiraling into bankruptcy.
I think it was good and kind and generous of him to mention the financial burden, because he was really talking about people other than himself. He earns millions of dollars per year. He is a 1%-er. He was very sad, not only for his own child and family, but for those who are not as fortunate financially as he is.
We know Jimmy Kimmel can pay for the healthcare his baby received. As well as sharing the horror he and his family felt at seeing his little baby in such dire circumstances, Jimmy was speaking out for the millions of people in the U.S. who cannot pay for the quality care his own child received. Good on him.
I don't watch Jimmy Kimmel regularly, because he is so neutral. I did watch on the night in question, though.
I no longer watch Jimmy Fallon at all, ever since he did a really softball interview of Trump on his show during the election cycle.
I prefer more fearless comedians, like Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers, both of whom do a lot of political humor and seem to hate Trump and his back room misogynistic white guy contingent as much as I do.
Last edited by SFBayBoomer; 05-06-2017 at 04:48 PM..
Kimmel wasn't politicizing his son's condition. He was rightly pointing out that while his child was fortunate enough to have coverage, other children are not so fortunate.
Boot-licking lackeys for the blood-sucking insurance companies need to educate themselves.
Yes, but he specifically mentioned Trump as if everyone had health insurance under ANY sitting POTUS? Nope.
These are politically sensitive times and people don't seem to care who's buttons they press for whatever reasons, but they probably ought to if they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Yes, but he specifically mentioned Trump as if everyone had health insurance under ANY sitting POTUS? Nope.
These are politically sensitive times and people don't seem to care who's buttons they press for whatever reasons, but they probably ought to if they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
He mentioned Trump because under the ACA, his son would never be denied health insurance, but under TrumpCare he absolutely could. What about that simple truth are you having such difficulty with?
He mentioned Trump because under the ACA, his son would never be denied health insurance, but under TrumpCare he absolutely could. What about that simple truth are you having such difficulty with?
Guy politicized his sons heart disease and lies...
So Jimmy Kimmel, can you actually NAME a baby from anywhere in America that has been denied a life saving operation because "they had no insurance"?!?! No? That's because IT DOESNT HAPPEN, you turd!!! No Hospital in this country could deny life saving surgery or treatment without breaking the law, you stupid liar!! Why do liberal, Communist, Progressives lie about everything?
Yup. ObamaCare settled that. But once ObamaCare is gone, so is the guarantee.
Privately-owned hospitals may turn away patients in a non-emergency, but public hospitals cannot refuse care. Public hospitals, funded by taxpayer dollars, are held to a different standard than privately owned for-profit hospitals. This means that a public hospital is the best option for those without health insurance or the means to pay for care.
ALMOST EVERY HOSPITAL IN THE U.S. IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE NECESSARY EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT TO ANYONE - WITH OR WITHOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE.
If you have a massive headache, you collapse, rushed to hospital, by law they must help you. They see you have a brain tumor, they must operate. The overwhelming majority of cases will be covered by medicare, medicaid, or free care. If somehow none apply to you... go into debt or die.
Look, you can say whatever you want. But your hero and savior said on camera just a few short days ago that Australia has "better healthcare than we do."
Thoughts?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
