quote:

The hospital and police should be rightly blamed for this. Due to their NEGILIGENCE, an innocent American died under their protection and care.

quote:

She was kept at the hospital for seven hours, during which both legs were given ultrasounds to check for clots, which came back negative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

She was kept at the hospital for seven hours, during which both legs were given ultrasounds to check for clots, which came back negative.

Was that in another article? I didn't see anything about ultrasounds in this article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

She was kept at the hospital for seven hours, during which both legs were given ultrasounds to check for clots, which came back negative.

Was that in another article? I didn't see anything about ultrasounds in this article.

Was mentioned in several articles.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/hospital-mo-jail-death-1401159.html for one.
Editing to quote the relevant portion:
"They found that when Brown arrived at St. Mary's around 11:45 a.m. on Sept. 20, her left ankle was swollen. She was there for about seven hours, during which ultrasounds on both of her legs were negative for blood clots."

quote:


The investigation found that medical staff conducted an ultrasound of Brown's legs about 24 hours before she died, which did not reveal any clots. One nurse claimed she saw Brown put on her pants and stand.
...
Experts say the condition Brown suffered, called deep vein thrombosis, can develop within hours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

What killed this woman was having to rely on emergency rooms for her primary care. Emergency rooms are the primary health care source for the uninsured in this country. Not only is it inefficient in terms of providing care, it is inefficient economically, since those costs are passed on to the rest of us. Which is why there was an overhaul of the system in the first place. I do have to wonder about a political party that thinks this system is preferable to the so called individual mandate. Because from what I can see, I am mandated now to pay for a health care system now that is inefficient and doesn't deliver good service.

quote:

I see the fault as being an exact example of the problem with health care in this country overall. And a major reason to push for national health care. It should NOT matter what insurance you have. Doctors should treat the condition, not the insurance policy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic



gotta love the republican angle...well romneys at least

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday insisted that President Barack Obama’s health care reform law should be overturned and that people with preexisting conditions should be denied coverage if they had never had insurance before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
What killed this woman was having to rely on emergency rooms for her primary care. Emergency rooms are the primary health care source for the uninsured in this country. Not only is it inefficient in terms of providing care, it is inefficient economically, since those costs are passed on to the rest of us. Which is why there was an overhaul of the system in the first place. I do have to wonder about a political party that thinks this system is preferable to the so called individual mandate. Because from what I can see, I am mandated now to pay for a health care system now that is inefficient and doesn't deliver good service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
What killed this woman was having to rely on emergency rooms for her primary care. Emergency rooms are the primary health care source for the uninsured in this country. Not only is it inefficient in terms of providing care, it is inefficient economically, since those costs are passed on to the rest of us. Which is why there was an overhaul of the system in the first place. I do have to wonder about a political party that thinks this system is preferable to the so called individual mandate. Because from what I can see, I am mandated now to pay for a health care system now that is inefficient and doesn't deliver good service.

So, the leg blood clots had nothing to do with it? Had a Dr. sent her for ultrasounds, they very well could have come up negative, just like the ones that were done. I do not know what the protocol is regarding re-testing via ultrasound. Add into it that the these clots can break off and kill you if they reach your lungs and it's that much more dangerous.

Derrick Thomas (9-time Pro Bowl Linebacker for the KC Chiefs) died because of a pulmonary embolism after an accident that paralyzed him. The surgeries to stabilize his broken spine were considered successful and Dr.'s were expectant that he would walk again. They were transferring him on a gurney and he died right there. And, you can't tell me that he wasn't getting acceptable preventive care.

And, please stop the BS about the Republicans wanting the pre-Obamacare system survive. No one believed the system didn't need reformed. The only difference is how to get to that reform.

And, how about we make it known that at the end of the day, most Democrats and Republicans want the same ends, but disagree on the way to get there. That's really the main difference. How to get there. More government, or more individual empowerment. And, no, single payer (government) health care is not empowering individuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
I have never heard a workable repub solution, other than Romneycare. And no, i don't think being able to selll policies across state lines is a solution. To hear you guys complain about having to pay for other's "bad decisions", despite, in your case anyway, some obviously poor health choices, I can only conclude the only plan that will satisfy you guys is every man for himself.
And yes DS, people die, despite good health care. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the quality of care improves your chances

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
I have never heard a workable repub solution, other than Romneycare. And no, i don't think being able to selll policies across state lines is a solution. To hear you guys complain about having to pay for other's "bad decisions", despite, in your case anyway, some obviously poor health choices, I can only conclude the only plan that will satisfy you guys is every man for himself.
And yes DS, people die, despite good health care. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the quality of care improves your chances

Of course you haven't heard a workable repub solution. How could you? In your estimation, the current incarnation is probably the worst solution that is actually workable. Since the repub's aren't going to push this, none of their solutions would sound workable to you. I can just as easily say I have yet to hear a workable solution from the Dem's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The whole basis of PPACA was to lower the cost of health care. It isn't doing that. It's just taking from one group and using that money to pay for other's care. That's not lowering the actual cost of care. That's just charging someone else. It's the same bullshit as the Carbon Cap and Tax idea. It won't lower carbon emissions. It just shifts money around. That's it. Al Gore buys "carbon offsets" to reduce his massive carbon footprint. Did he lower his emissions? No. He just paid someone else for theirs. And, if whoever sold the offsets wasn't using their allotted quota, carbon emissions won't have changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People whine about the loss of the American Steel Industry. Does anyone think about what that would do to our carbon footprint? Steel mills use a ridiculous amount of fuel to run. Even the mills that use electrical induction as the primary method of heat generation still have to get that electricity from somewhere...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri



Of course you haven't heard a workable repub solution. How could you? In your estimation, the current incarnation is probably the worst solution that is actually workable. Since the repub's aren't going to push this, none of their solutions would sound workable to you. I can just as easily say I have yet to hear a workable solution from the Dem's.

The whole basis of PPACA was to lower the cost of health care. It isn't doing that. It's just taking from one group and using that money to pay for other's care. That's not lowering the actual cost of care. That's just charging someone else. It's the same bullshit as the Carbon Cap and Tax idea. It won't lower carbon emissions. It just shifts money around. That's it. Al Gore buys "carbon offsets" to reduce his massive carbon footprint. Did he lower his emissions? No. He just paid someone else for theirs. And, if whoever sold the offsets wasn't using their allotted quota, carbon emissions won't have changed.

People whine about the loss of the American Steel Industry. Does anyone think about what that would do to our carbon footprint? Steel mills use a ridiculous amount of fuel to run. Even the mills that use electrical induction as the primary method of heat generation still have to get that electricity from somewhere...

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Then you have been ignorant of Mass Health! It was set up with Democrats and one Republican Governor (the only good thing he did for the Commonwealth). It really is to bad that most Americans do not look at this program objectively. Yes, it has its problems and issues. However those can be fixed with the people working on it. You know, sort of a core concept of the USA goverment, 'Of the People, By the People, For the People'? Republicans have tried to jade Americans into believing that system does not work, and only by making them the one and only rulers will we get actual health care (seems you've accepted that 'hook, line, and sinker'). To which brings up one more.....'which is more likely'? The GOP creating a good health care system across the board for all Americans in the next 30 years or myself winning the Mega-Millions jackpot this time around?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The whole basis of PPACA was to lower the cost of health care. It isn't doing that. It's just taking from one group and using that money to pay for other's care. That's not lowering the actual cost of care. That's just charging someone else. It's the same bullshit as the Carbon Cap and Tax idea. It won't lower carbon emissions. It just shifts money around. That's it. Al Gore buys "carbon offsets" to reduce his massive carbon footprint. Did he lower his emissions? No. He just paid someone else for theirs. And, if whoever sold the offsets wasn't using their allotted quota, carbon emissions won't have changed.

Its not the ONLY thing that law was set up to accomplish. Most Americans either like how the Affordable Card Act was designed as, or wish it to be better. Conservatives are in the minority that wish to see pain and suffering on the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans. What does that say of you and your fellow conservatives 'morals'? If money is the only thing that really gives you happiness, I truly pity you!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People whine about the loss of the American Steel Industry. Does anyone think about what that would do to our carbon footprint? Steel mills use a ridiculous amount of fuel to run. Even the mills that use electrical induction as the primary method of heat generation still have to get that electricity from somewhere...

"Drop in the Bucket" compared to the oil industry. BTW, what does the 'carbon footprint' have to do with American's health coverage? We are talking about health care and coverage, not which country's air pollution is worst than ours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


Its not the ONLY thing that law was set up to accomplish. Most Americans either like how the Affordable Card Act was designed as, or wish it to be better. Conservatives are in the minority that wish to see pain and suffering on the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans. What does that say of you and your fellow conservatives 'morals'? If money is the only thing that really gives you happiness, I truly pity you!

quote:


At this point, roughly half of the public disapproves of the law on average. In a Reason-Rupe poll released today, 50 percent of Americans reported an unfavorable view of the health care law. Just 32 percent reported a favorable view of the law. That tracks with most other polls. The multipoll aggregate at Pollster.com shows that 49.7 percent of the public disapproves of the law. Just 37 percent approve of it, meanwhile—and approval has been declining slowly for more than a year.

Public opinion about Obama’s job performance on health care is similar: 49.7 percent disapprove, while just 41.6 percent approve. The gap in between those two figures has narrowed slightly since last fall, when disapproval ran as high as 54 percent. But overall, the numbers remain remarkably consistent: Roughly half of the country dislikes the law, and the president's handling of it, while somewhat fewer are in favor.

An even larger majority dislikes the most important provision being debated by the Supreme Court this week: the law’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week, 67 percent want to see that part of the law removed.