Do you mean 18,000 people who are uninsured die each year?

Say, by being in car accidents, being hit by buses, or shot by some miscreant?

Perhaps they die in their sleep, or from an incurable illness?

Please, please ! Make some connection between not having medical insurance and dying…

The only possibility I can imagine is that there is a serial killer out there who confronts people at random, and threatens them : “If you can’t prove you have Medical Insurance, I am going to kill you!”

There are either a whole bunch of such killers, or they are WAAAAAAAYYYY busy !

The fact that they didn’t have insurance doesn’t mean they could not receive care. I have seen many people who simply refuse to avail themselves of services. You can’t force a diabetic to lose weight, watch their diet or take medicine. Same with hypertensives. In fact, one would expect that people with poor jobs or none at all (although theoretically they should be eligible for government assist health care, perhaps they simply didn’t sign up for it?)are the people also least likely to care properly for themselves.

Perhaps Newsy is suggesting we lock people up and FORCE them to take their medicine?

Add right winger “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” to the ranks of right wing liars.

Note, too, that that study was from 2002 when there were fewer Americans without health insurance.

The number is likely significantly higher now.

By right wing magic, the SCHIP program created in 1997 and signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, is credited to Republican President Bush who wasn’t sworn into office until 2001.

We’ll assume that everything else right winger “conservo” says has similar credibility.

Yes it is. It’s openly tolerated all the time. Claims are refused by insurance companies all the time. Americans without health coverage, or even sucky coverage, go without necessary treatment to debilitating illnesses. 18,000 Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Seriously, what America do you live in?

Please give me chapter and verse where it says that “wait time is exceedingly rare”.

If you have a non-life threatening, but debilitating illness, within 3 months to get treatment is not a standard to shoot for. In fact, it would simply not be tolerated in this country.

When they experienced any wait at all, which as the article points out is exceedingly rare. It’s clear that your misreading the statistics because you quote that the median time is 3 weeks but then also take the “within three months” to mean that everyone is taking 3 months, ignoring the word “within” meaning ‘less than’.

Did you even look at the statistic of the number of Canadians experiencing wait times?

the AMSA study was unreadable

I understand that the Q&A format must be confusing to you. It does point to studies that show the number of Americans without insurance who need treatment, something I was using to contrast with the Canadian statistics.

While you’re at it, you should note that the Court basically concurred with the lower court decision: That once the Title VII issue was resolved, there was no need to address the Constitutional question. This was a central complaint from conservatives about the appeals court decision and the Supreme Court rejected it out of hand.

What the Court did today was find that the city of New Haven did not meet the standard for determining disparate impact when it threw out the test, thus court established a higher standard for future decisions.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=49607

sorry Michael, I just assumed that you didn’t even read your own cites which say things like:

Between 2003 and 2005, median waiting times for all specialized services under study remained relatively stable at between three and four weeks. (The median is the point where exactly one half of waiting times are higher and one half lower.) Most individuals reported they received care within three months, which was also relatively unchanged.

the AMSA study was unreadable; it is simply an opinion piece.

If you think that people with insurance should reasonable wait more than a month just to see a specialist…and you consider that good quality care…well, I suspect you stand in the minority of americans

Would you like to try again?

I’ll concede that right winger “conservo’s” falsehood is likely a result of, in their own words, that they “are flat out dumb”, but I’ll consider the possibility that “conservo” isn’t dumb but rather that “conservo” is just a flat out liar.

New Estimate Supports the President’s SCHIP Reform Principles
This estimate reaffirms that the President’s proposal to target an appropriate amount of funding for covering low-income children is the responsible approach for SCHIP reauthorization.

* SCHIP has been a success. Since its enactment, the number of uninsured children living in low-income families (between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level) fell by 25 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
* This Administration has added some two million low-income children to the program in the past six years.
* The Administration’s SCHIP reauthorization proposal strengthens the commitment to providing health insurance to low-income, uninsured children. The proposal:
o Re-focuses the program on its original aim of providing health coverage to low-income children at or below 200 percent of poverty (e.g., $41,300 for a family of four).
o Increases the SCHIP allotments by $4.8 billion in new spending over five years to maintain enrollment for priority low-income children.
o Changes the way SCHIP funds are allocated with an improved formula, based largely on what states are actually spending on children in the targeted population, that would more accurately direct resources to needs.

BUSH signed the damn legislation supporting public health benefits for infants….It.Has.Been.Done By a republican!

Now get back on lexis-nexis and educate you damn self

So in order to change the subject from health care and the right wing enabled looting of our health care system that has put US behind dozens of other countries on multiple health-metrics, the right wing white supremacist “Amused Observer” “note[s] with pleasure the ruling this morning” where the right wing activist Justices ruled on behalf of the white males.

It’s a shame that the right wing activist Justices decided to make law instead of following the law.

But it’s a bigger shame that the right wing whiners about ‘judicial activism’ don’t have the consistency of conscience to call out the right wing activist Justices who are ‘making law’.

But then cognitive dissonance is the cornerstone of right winger’s psychology.

After all, right wingers have a hard time calling out domestic terrorists blowing up clinics but at the same time right wingers won’t support a public option for the health of infants.

Nuts.

Nuts.

okay, Amused, explain to us all then, in your own words, why the Supreme Court decided the way it did.

And you still have no understanding of the case, the appeals court decision or, now, the Supreme Court decision.