Should you travel to Europe and drop with a heart attack and get a double bypass, you will have to pay because you are not part of any European nations healthcare system. However the bill will be a fraction of a double bypass performed in the United States, even with insurance.

I actually know a fellow that this happened to in 1993. His total bill was $180 USD. How’s that for savings!?

Exactly, a perfect example that insurance reform is not the major problem but rather costs. In your example the bill was $180 without socialized insurance coverage. Those countries don't have to deal with all the malpractice litigation suits for millions of dollars either so they didn't have to cover their butts by running as many expensive tests.

Thank you for making that point.. When costs come down so will the price of insurance.

If you thought that sappy Sixties “family reunification” replacement of qualifications or a points system for individuals was bad enough, or you thought the little anti-Reagan worms of the “sanctuary” movement were bad in the 1980s, or the game-players in the Bush years (even government officials vowing to break the law and protect illegal immigrants, to obstruct justice), and you thought that some silly kids would view us as needing abuse-ridden “asylum” laws as in other nations, or even worse “reforms,” you're right on all counts — and you know what to expect when immigration “reform” is pursued by the Dems after health care has been completed.

I actually know a fellow that this happened to in 1993. His total bill was $180 USD. How’s that for savings!?

Luckily some states are now enforcing some strict laws that have curtailed hiring by taking away business licenses from violators. Now if we remove free healthcare services we might make some more progress.

I'm not saying turn them out of the emergency room, but I have no problem with arresting them at the same time they are treated, they are criminals after all. After they recover from their injuries they should be put to work as part of a penal system rehabilitation project to work off the debt they incur for the medical services recieved. When they pay it off, deport them. A system like that would cut our loses, and likely reduce the number of illegals getting treatment, and the number coming accross our borders.

They broke the law by being in the country in the first place, if they don't like it don't break it.

We must endeavor to continue on raising our voices against the powerful forces that think nothing more than to destroy this valuable commodity called E-Verify. Overtime it will rid from every workplaces of millions of illegal workers, who think they are safe from government intervention. It will save billions of dollars being exported to other lands and sever the tolerant welfare programs, health care, education accessed by illegal low wage earners. E-Verify could introduced in all medical facilities, to check a persons national identity. The expedited message will spread and these lawbreakers will realize that it's fruitless to keep on applying for jobs. Eventually families will start to pack-up and depart for every corner of the earth. But it's up to the American voter to keep relentlessly calling the Washington switchboard 202-224-3121contacting their politicians.

Evaluate each lawmaker at NUMBERSUSA or JUDICIAL WATCH and command them to enforce E-Verify permanently. Not Voluntary for every business, but a mandatory addition for each employer. Fulfill their obligation to build the fence according to Rep. Duncan Hunter R-CA. Keep training the regular police according to the Federal 287 G directive,. Not to Rescind the No Match letter or desist ICE raids or weaken any other enforcement law, such as the 1986 Immigration Control & Reform Act. Fed's should restrict SANCTUARY CITY & STATE policies. NOW IT'S UP TO YOU? STARTLING WEBSITE! GOOGLE—IMMIGRATIONCOUNTERS.

Certainly there is no moral or logical obligation for it to have to be a new federal entitlement, and there is no “right” to it for anyone in this light, in any way whatsoever, but making it an entitlement has always been part of federal health care for the non-elderly, and it will develop as the health care effort “progresses.” Hence the Capps amendment to HR 3200 as the opening act:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090…

Also President Obama being against a censure on Rep Wilson is quite refreshing. I highly doubt we'd have seen it from the last Administration.

Now, beyond that basic level of being able to give a crap about another human being, there is the matter of Rush Limbaugh. I happen to believe that RL has single-handedly done more to create division among the citizens of this country, and by extension more to reverse progress here than any other person I can think of. His legacy is a dark one and will be a blot on our country's record for a long time to come. Looking at the quote E.J. referenced, is a prime example of this. What Rush is best at (other than demonizing people and twisting the meaning of facts) is essentially yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre full of people who are mentally and emotionally “fragile” to begin with.

And so the answer to E.J.'s final question, would be, “yes”. I'm sure he knew this before he asked it.

LMAO

The Democrats twice voted down an amendment that would specify SAVE as the method of verification of legal status (SAVE is the same database checking that is used for other federal benefits, so it's certainly not 'Draconian'.) After Wilson's comment brought more attention on the issue of whether or not the language in the bill was “as tough as it could be to ensure this didn't happen”, the Dems quietly snuck the language that the GOP had suggested into the bill.

Aside from that, it's disingenuous to tie this to denial of emergency treatment. Most people who support the use of SAVE verification for anyone attempting to take part in the public option program (or particularly, the funding for those who need financial assistance to take part and get insured through this program) are generally not asking to change the existing laws which mandate emergency medical treatment without verification.

Bad analogy. In the majority of cases much less disease would be spread if he just stayed home. You should only seek treatment if you have severe symptoms or at high risk for complications. Most people should not seek immediate medical help as Dionne suggests.

It depends on if the public option is lost when the health care legislation is finally written and approved.

It depends on how low the Left is willing to go, again.

Bad analogy. He would be more likely to spread the disease if he went to the doctor’s office than if he stayed home.