If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Sorry about keeping your brain-dead wife on life support against her will because of our medieval religious laws -- here's a massive hospital bill to make you feel better   (dailykos.com) divider line 200
    More: Sick, DailyKos, medical bills  
•       •       •

18448 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:53 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-31 02:55:29 PM  
that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.
 
2014-01-31 02:57:59 PM  
If you live in Texas, it shouldn't come as any surprise
 
2014-01-31 03:00:14 PM  

FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.


To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.
 
2014-01-31 03:05:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.


I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-31 03:08:48 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you live in Texas, it shouldn't come as any surprise


I would say that they couldn't possible not realize how bad they will look if they tried to bill the family, but it's Texas.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were proud that they were sticking it to the moocher.
 
2014-01-31 03:12:56 PM  

vpb: MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you live in Texas, it shouldn't come as any surprise

I would say that they couldn't possible not realize how bad they will look if they tried to bill the family, but it's Texas.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were proud that they were sticking it to the moocher.


I figure they'd bill the insurance and then the insurance would deny the claim.

/"It's that evil Obamcare!!" will show up as well
 
2014-01-31 03:18:43 PM  

Serious Black: I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


i think there's plenty of outrage to go around even before we know the billing situation.
 
2014-01-31 03:31:28 PM  

FlashHarry: Serious Black: I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

i think there's plenty of outrage to go around even before we know the billing situation.


Sure there is. This would just be the outrageous cherry on top of an enormously outraging sundae.
 
2014-01-31 03:35:06 PM  
Actually, this headline is unfair to medieval medical practitioners.

Sure, they thought that opening a vein cured evil humors and they tended to just pray a lot, but even monks and nuns would give a dying person an herbal concoction to "sleep" while the prayed over them and they died.
 
2014-01-31 03:50:05 PM  

Serious Black: This would just be the outrageous cherry on top of an enormously outraging sundae.


img.fark.net

mmmmm. outragelicious.
 
2014-01-31 03:59:27 PM  
If he gets the bills, he should go to Austin with a gaggle of reporters, drop the bills on Rick Perry's desk while cameras are rolling and if he and his God Squad will pay for this.
 
2014-01-31 03:59:32 PM  
Chances are the guy, like many Americans, has minimal assets, so if he gets the bills, just go bankrupt.  It's not really that hard to hide a few tens of thousands if he has it.

Fark the hospital if they send bills.
 
2014-01-31 04:00:39 PM  
Five bucks the hospital will try to use the bill as leverage against the coming lawsuit.
 
2014-01-31 04:01:36 PM  
Arise, Luke Skywalker Corpse Turducken! Fulfill your destiny.
 
2014-01-31 04:02:24 PM  

what_now: Actually, this headline is unfair to medieval medical practitioners.

Sure, they thought that opening a vein cured evil humors and they tended to just pray a lot, but even monks and nuns would give a dying person an herbal concoction to "sleep" while the prayed over them and they died.


Agrees.
l.yimg.com
 
2014-01-31 04:03:54 PM  
Old and Busted:  Death Panels

New Hotness:  Life Panels
 
2014-01-31 04:03:58 PM  
Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.
 
2014-01-31 04:04:33 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


I think I'll be slightly perturbed now at the idea that he might even GET a bill.

I may be outraged later at the idea they may brush it off as "well, automated billing" as if there is some tiny elf working in the accounts office that can't be reasoned with.
 
2014-01-31 04:04:46 PM  
Thanks Obamacare.
 
2014-01-31 04:06:04 PM  
I doubt he has much more money after paying lawyer's fees.
 
2014-01-31 04:06:22 PM  

scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.


If my reading comprehension hasn't failed me, it says the media outlets have been told the hospital "would continue normal billing".

So he hasn't gotten the full bill yet.

I'd hope a court, if it gets that far, would not force him to pay the amount the hospital may say is owed after the family said "Let her die"
 
2014-01-31 04:06:24 PM  
The Free Market TM in action?
 
2014-01-31 04:07:08 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Five bucks the hospital will try to use the bill as leverage against the coming lawsuit.


That's my take as well. They will write off the massively inflated bill as part of the settlement.
 
2014-01-31 04:10:39 PM  
Ah, there's the rub. If people want to believe that a fetus is a child and that a brain dead body is a living soul even without a mind or a working heart, then let them foot the bills.

Yes, universal single payer government medical care--for maggots* and zombies.

Yep. That's the solution. Liberals get universal medical care and child support for unwanted or bastard children and people with no more brain than half a brick has, and conservatives get the nice warm feeling of being righteous and making somebody's life miserable for ever because of one teeny mistake they made somewhere, such as being conceived or taking drugs or being hit by a stretch limousine commandeered by a drunk Hollywood brat and her fair-weather pals.

There's something in this for everybody and the taxpayers pay for all. Not the rich, of course. They'll pay for it out of payroll deductions, not income taxes, just like health insurance, unemployment insurance, and so forth. All paid by the workers, not the owners. Property taxes are for schools. But only because the rich were once the only people sending their children to schools. Or hospitals. Museums, art galleries, parks, libraries, etc.

Because surely abortion is not about government spending. Abortion prevents massive amounts of government spending. It may even prevent wars since you can't fight wars using rich old white men and women as cannon fodder.

*Souls of unborn children. Look it up.
 
2014-01-31 04:12:44 PM  
Reminds me of how they charge you for the bullet that executes your loved ones in China.
 
2014-01-31 04:12:45 PM  
Like I have said so many times; conservatives are not against a "nanny state", they just want to be the nannies.  They are all about personal freedom as long as you make the choices they want you to make.  You are free to decide to do what they want you to do.  if you choose differently it is a direct assault on their right to choose for you.
 
2014-01-31 04:13:07 PM  
LessO2: If he gets the bills, he should go to Austin with a gaggle of reporters, drop the bills on Rick Perry's desk while cameras are rolling and if he and his God Squad will pay for this.

he'd be able to foot the bill if he took Romney up on those bets
 
2014-01-31 04:15:23 PM  
I wondered about that.  I guess the hospital went there.
 
2014-01-31 04:15:42 PM  
Wait, she did go to the hospital after the initial event. The hospital did provide treatment and life saving measures prior to declaring her brain dead. I think he should pay for that. After they declared her brain dead and he wished to have efforts terminated, then there should be a dispute about that portion of the bill. The hospital shouldn't have the suck up the entire bill because they were following the law. It wasn't like they were doing it to just be douches or for some religious reason. It is a law.
 
2014-01-31 04:17:17 PM  
The problem with this whole situation is that some people might change their behavior when reacting to a pregnant woman in a near death situation.  Instead of calling for help, they may just sit quiet until the woman dies in order to avoid a repeat of this situation.  Of course, then they have to deal with the police and any possible charges of failing to obtain aid.  But dealing with a jury might be better than dealing with a hospital staffed by fundies.
 
2014-01-31 04:17:27 PM  

FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

Texas.
 
2014-01-31 04:18:03 PM  
I'm not outraged yet. The hospital's computers start processing the bills automatically and sending them out. It's not like Smedley in accounting decided personally to write up the bill and send it to the poor widower.

I'll save my outrage until after the hospital decides to pursue him for payment.
 
2014-01-31 04:18:09 PM  
Birth 'em all, let God sort 'em out.
 
2014-01-31 04:19:07 PM  
Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.
 
2014-01-31 04:19:10 PM  
IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.
 
2014-01-31 04:19:32 PM  
 
2014-01-31 04:19:43 PM  
What is the penalty to the hospital for not following the law?
 
2014-01-31 04:20:10 PM  

brantgoose: Ah, there's the rub. If people want to believe that a fetus is a child and that a brain dead body is a living soul even without a mind or a working heart, then let them foot the bills.

Yes, universal single payer government medical care--for maggots* and zombies.

Yep. That's the solution. Liberals get universal medical care and child support for unwanted or bastard children and people with no more brain than half a brick has, and conservatives get the nice warm feeling of being righteous and making somebody's life miserable for ever because of one teeny mistake they made somewhere, such as being conceived or taking drugs or being hit by a stretch limousine commandeered by a drunk Hollywood brat and her fair-weather pals.

There's something in this for everybody and the taxpayers pay for all. Not the rich, of course. They'll pay for it out of payroll deductions, not income taxes, just like health insurance, unemployment insurance, and so forth. All paid by the workers, not the owners. Property taxes are for schools. But only because the rich were once the only people sending their children to schools. Or hospitals. Museums, art galleries, parks, libraries, etc.

Because surely abortion is not about government spending. Abortion prevents massive amounts of government spending. It may even prevent wars since you can't fight wars using rich old white men and women as cannon fodder.

*Souls of unborn children. Look it up.


6/10...you went a little far on that one.
 
2014-01-31 04:20:43 PM  

palelizard: I doubt he has much more money after paying lawyer's fees.


Oh, I'm sure he isn't paying the scumbags. There's a strain for whatever injustice ails you, and this one probably did the first part in order to sue in the second part.
 
2014-01-31 04:21:49 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


Estate executors may be required to settle outstanding debts out of the estate's assets. It is likely the contents of her estate are also marital assets.

You may not be able to pass debt to another person but it is likely he signed her admitting papers - and I'd bet everything I own that at least one of those signed forms asked for confirmation of payee. In a regular billable situation this ensures non-payment will result in endless collection attempts.
 
2014-01-31 04:22:12 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Five bucks the hospital will try to use the bill as leverage against the coming lawsuit.


The husband should sue them for taking her off life support, when there was a good chance she could have recovered. When they start screaming bloody murder, say he's just following the law, and refuse to allow them to discuss the case with the media, while he gives twice daily news conferences...
 
2014-01-31 04:22:34 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


spouses owe medical bills
 
2014-01-31 04:23:16 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


Well, he should still be charged for his wife's care...right up until the point that she became brain-dead.  Everything that happened after that, against his and the rest of their family's wishes, the hospital should eat.
 
2014-01-31 04:23:55 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox


I can't wait to hear the reason why Obama should be paying Erick Munoz' hospital bills.  Please.  Go on.
 
2014-01-31 04:25:35 PM  
Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?
 
2014-01-31 04:28:14 PM  
texans gonna texan
 
2014-01-31 04:28:41 PM  
I would be shocked if they delivered a bill, at least past the point the hospital started meddling. But stranger things have happened.
 
2014-01-31 04:30:28 PM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people. Living wills.

Apparently the dead woman had one, the state doesn't care.

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?



For a given definition of "alive" I suppose, but not much of one for any kind of good life.
 
2014-01-31 04:31:50 PM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.


iirc this lady did have a DNR but the small government conservatives in texas used the power of that small government to trump her.
 
2014-01-31 04:31:52 PM  

Genetic drift survivor: What is the penalty to the hospital for not following the law?


Oh they get a new budget proposal and some state funding.
they also laugh all the way to the bank.
 
2014-01-31 04:32:50 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


No on both counts.
 
2014-01-31 04:35:49 PM  
Stay classy Texas.
 
2014-01-31 04:37:22 PM  
Time for a freeperthon!
 
2014-01-31 04:37:36 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


According to another article the fetus was badly deformed from the waist down & had hydrocephalus. Not surprising really since it gestating in the womb of a dead woman. Even if it had been born it probably wouldn't have survived for very long.
 
2014-01-31 04:38:41 PM  

heavymetal: Like I have said so many times; conservatives are not against a "nanny state", they just want to be the nannies.  They are all about personal freedom as long as you make the choices they want you to make.  You are free to decide to do what they want you to do.  if you choose differently it is a direct assault on their right to choose for you.


Sounds like my relationship with my wife.
 
2014-01-31 04:38:50 PM  

chuggernaught: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

No on both counts.


Unless there's a system built in where the child can be delivered at some point I'm not sure what the point of the law is.
 
2014-01-31 04:41:15 PM  
Too bad this wasn't a private hospital.  He tells them he refuses to pay for any continuing care after they decide they can not keep her on life support, she would probably die when they attempt to transfer her to County.

Since this is a county hospital, it's more difficult.  At least they usually have assistance for people who can't pay.  Oh wait... Texas.
 
2014-01-31 04:41:46 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: According to another article the fetus was badly deformed from the waist down & had hydrocephalus. Not surprising really since it gestating in the womb of a dead woman. Even if it had been born it probably wouldn't have survived for very long.


Also no brain either.
 
2014-01-31 04:42:17 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to another article the fetus was badly deformed from the waist down & had hydrocephalus. Not surprising really since it gestating in the womb of a dead woman being pumped full of chemicals that have nasty effects on fetuses to keep her from rotting. Even if it had been born it probably wouldn't have survived for very long.


FTFY. The fetus, like its mother, was dead, and the fact that her body was kept "alive" just so some assholes could wave their "LOOK HOW PRO-LIFE I AM" dicks around is an absolute atrocity.
 
2014-01-31 04:42:53 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


I'll reserve my complete admiration for the hospital until I'm sure they've billed the poor man then graciously, with all manner of overexposed media coverage, forgiven the bloated bill in its entirety.

/the one saving grace is the bloated, overcharged, multiple-billing debt will be paid for by countless tummy tucks, vajayjay remodels, pecker pumps and lots of other necessary medical procedures paid for by the same kind of people who thought keeping two corpses on life-support was the ethical thing to do
/not to mention a few procedures done on young white well-to-do daughters paid for by their mothers who refused to raise their daughter's little lump for them
 
2014-01-31 04:43:37 PM  

MutantMotherMouse: spouses owe medical bills


That's not generally true. It can be true in community-property states (which include Texas), but as a general rule it requires a written agreement to take on anyone else's debt, including your spouse's. Obviously you should consult the rules in your particular jurisdiction for details.
 
2014-01-31 04:43:57 PM  
As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.
 
2014-01-31 04:44:53 PM  
FTA: Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.


Not a damn cent, that's what.
 
2014-01-31 04:45:56 PM  

heavymetal: Like I have said so many times; conservatives are not against a "nanny state", they just want to be the nannies.  They are all about personal freedom as long as you make the choices they want you to make.  You are free to decide to do what they want you to do.  if you choose differently it is a direct assault on their right to choose for you.


Harrumph! Well said.
 
2014-01-31 04:46:45 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox


I think it would be more appropriate to take them to Rick Perry.  I don't see how Obama is involved in this.
 
2014-01-31 04:47:56 PM  

Doom On You: FTA: Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.


Not a damn cent, that's what.


Had he mentioned sooner that he had no intention of paying the plug would have been pulled long ago.
 
2014-01-31 04:47:56 PM  
Excellent trolling subby. A false headline specifically designed to induce frothing.

/tiphat
 
2014-01-31 04:49:35 PM  
Just don't pay it.   Jesus.
 
2014-01-31 04:51:59 PM  
To be fair if he ( a paramedic IIRC) has to pay he will actually meet the 10s of thousands of dollars of deductible he now gets to pay under Obamacare. So that's kinda nice.
 
2014-01-31 04:52:02 PM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.


She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight
 
2014-01-31 04:54:01 PM  

TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.


You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard
 
2014-01-31 04:54:52 PM  
The article said she was pregnant, that's why they didn't take her off life support (or did I read wrong)

What happened to the baby?
 
2014-01-31 04:55:41 PM  
Shouldn't they send the bill to the patient?
 
2014-01-31 04:56:05 PM  

PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight


It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.
 
2014-01-31 04:58:13 PM  

ManateeGag: The article said she was pregnant, that's why they didn't take her off life support (or did I read wrong)

What happened to the baby?


It was delivered and got a full ride to Texas A&M.
 
2014-01-31 04:58:42 PM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.


Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!
 
2014-01-31 05:00:19 PM  

armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.



So let the patient get the bill then.  Of course, being dead, it's unlikely that her credit will take much of a hit when it goes to a collection agency.
 
2014-01-31 05:03:11 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.

You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard


That's MISTER left wing farktard to you, boy.
 
2014-01-31 05:07:39 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: Reminds me of how they charge you for the bullet that executes your loved ones in China.


The hospital's council needs that treatment.
 
2014-01-31 05:08:20 PM  
Do it!  Please go ahead and bill this person.  The resulting asskicking you and the state of texas will be getting in court is going to be hilarious.
 
2014-01-31 05:09:03 PM  
If the state wants this then the state pays for this as that is just how it should be, if you demand extraordinary measures by law then you should be willing to pay for it, period end of statement.  Now personally I think the state was idiotic to require such measures, but if they are going to be idiots then they should be sure to pay for their stupidity and not the poor family who is having to deal with the loss of life.  I am sure this man is being tortured daily by the loss of his wife and the loss of what could have been a second child, and he certainly does not need to face a mountain of medial bills that will destroy his and his son's lives just because some supposed "small government" conservative decided to get involved.
 
2014-01-31 05:10:34 PM  

armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.


How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?
 
2014-01-31 05:11:57 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.

The estate that she owns with her husband?
 
2014-01-31 05:12:57 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


Glad that there is one reasonable person here.
 
2014-01-31 05:13:15 PM  

efgeise: PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight

It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.


Is this the part of the thread where we ignore the judge's rulings that say the hospital grossly misinterpreted the law?
 
2014-01-31 05:14:06 PM  

meat0918: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

If my reading comprehension hasn't failed me, it says the media outlets have been told the hospital "would continue normal billing".

So he hasn't gotten the full bill yet.

I'd hope a court, if it gets that far, would not force him to pay the amount the hospital may say is owed after the family said "Let her die"


The family owes nothing. The bills are in the wife's name and she's dead. They don't get to go after the family for her bills.
 
2014-01-31 05:15:59 PM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.


She had an DNA order on the books. They decided not to follow it, so they couldn't be accused of denying the pregnant lady life saving care.
 
2014-01-31 05:19:04 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.

You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard


static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-01-31 05:21:24 PM  

scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.


The surviving spouse is not obligated to pay these. The hospital can attempt to bill all they want.
 
2014-01-31 05:21:39 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


14 weeks and water on the brain. So, no.
 
2014-01-31 05:22:07 PM  

Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!


This is why I think women of child-bearing age should add an addendum to their living wills to the effect of "If I am pregnant within ( x ) trimester/week window ( x further directive x )" - and have bio dad sign it as well.

THAT would make for some serious derpitude
 
2014-01-31 05:22:36 PM  

shlabotnik: Excellent trolling subby. A false headline specifically designed to induce frothing.

/tiphat


FTA: "In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.  "

Are you doubting that his bills are massive, or that his bills cover anything since late November, when his wife was declared brain dead and he asked to stop life support?
 
2014-01-31 05:23:25 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: Reminds me of how they charge you for the bullet that executes your loved ones in China.


So you think this story is most likely an urban legend?

Or are you thinking of Iran?
 
PJ-
2014-01-31 05:24:25 PM  

Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?


DNR is different than being kept alive.
 
2014-01-31 05:28:51 PM  

parasol: Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!

This is why I think women of child-bearing age should add an addendum to their living wills to the effect of "If I am pregnant within ( x ) trimester/week window ( x further directive x )" - and have bio dad sign it as well.

THAT would make for some serious derpitude


NO. >_< Just NO. This is not a good idea.
Her husband, if she has one? Yes.
But bio dad of the kid involved is just NO.
 
2014-01-31 05:29:18 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.

You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard

That's MISTER left wing farktard to you, boy.


Ha!  That's your new farky.

www.awsm.com

The first round of whiskey is on me
 
2014-01-31 05:30:02 PM  
For everyone saying a spouse can't be billed: He may have signed a guarantor when she was admitted. Or:
If the spouses live in a community property state, or lived in one at the time the consumer debt occurred, the non-patient spouse may have incurred liability without signing any contract. The reasoning is that if a debt incurred during a marriage was used for the support of a spouse, liability may accrue to the non-signing spouse. Does this mean that the non-patient spouse has liability for the patient's debt in community property states? Maybe. Some creditors will not pursue legal action against the spouse because it is difficult to do so and are unwilling to expend the resources. Other creditors will take the time and expense. Each creditor has different policies, and therefore each case is different. (from bills.com)
 
2014-01-31 05:30:13 PM  

PJ-: Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?

DNR is different than being kept alive.


I thought they had a clause in there about requiring machinery to sustain life, and having you initial that part if you didn't want it? Am I wrong?

IANAL
 
2014-01-31 05:32:56 PM  
Laughing at these shenanigans:

media.economist.com

/on the inside
 
2014-01-31 05:33:13 PM  
Wipe your ass with those bills and send them right back.
 
2014-01-31 05:35:42 PM  

Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?


I don't think it matters (as stupid as it is)
 
2014-01-31 05:38:58 PM  

qorkfiend: efgeise: PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight

It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.

Is this the part of the thread where we ignore the judge's rulings that say the hospital grossly misinterpreted the law?


And then they shut down the machines when the judge ruled that they misinterpreted the laws. I'm still not seeing the source of outrage against the hospital.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.

It's going to be shiatty if they go after the family though.
 
2014-01-31 05:45:07 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.
 
2014-01-31 05:46:10 PM  
He will be on the hook for the bill, guaranteed.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:14 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


She was taken off life support days ago.  The kid is dead.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:19 PM  

fickenchucker: Chances are the guy, like many Americans, has minimal assets, so if he gets the bills, just go bankrupt. It's not really that hard to hide a few tens of thousands if he has it.


Bankruptcy changed during the whole housing bubble collapse.  Nowadays, if you aren't a corporation, it is very hard to declare bankruptcy.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:29 PM  
Well that explains the weird sound I heard earlier. Every civil lawyer in the state of Texas getting a hard on simultaneously. I can think of a few local guys I'm sure have already reached out to this family offering to sue that farking shiathole hospital to death.
 
2014-01-31 05:50:58 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


??
From what has been reported she was taken off life support days ago and her body has been released to the widower you want to "man up" - maybe being a single dad will help him with that...

nert
 
2014-01-31 05:56:11 PM  
Hospital chooses to keep her on life support against her wishes.
Hospital gets to pick up the bill.
Simple.
 
2014-01-31 05:58:44 PM  

Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!


She was already dead when they started pumping her full of chemicals & hooking her up to machines in order to keep her body going for the gestating fetus. It was addressed in the previous thread that the above statute didn't apply to this woman, and even the hospital eventually admitted it didn't. It would have applied had she been comatose or had some sort of brain function, but she didn't. She was brain dead. She was a slowly decaying corpse being kept artificially alive in the hopes that the baby she was carrying could be delivered. A baby with multiple deformities that likely would have died shortly after delivery. A brain dead body cannot really provide the essential things a gestating fetus needs to form and develop properly. Not to mention that the fetus was deprived of oxygen in utero, which further impacted it.
 
2014-01-31 06:00:16 PM  

efgeise: Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)


This wasn't life-sustaining treatment.  The patient was dead.  D-E-D.
 
2014-01-31 06:03:28 PM  

someonelse: For everyone saying a spouse can't be billed: He may have signed a guarantor when she was admitted. Or:
If the spouses live in a community property state, or lived in one at the time the consumer debt occurred, the non-patient spouse may have incurred liability without signing any contract. The reasoning is that if a debt incurred during a marriage was used for the support of a spouse, liability may accrue to the non-signing spouse. Does this mean that the non-patient spouse has liability for the patient's debt in community property states? Maybe. Some creditors will not pursue legal action against the spouse because it is difficult to do so and are unwilling to expend the resources. Other creditors will take the time and expense. Each creditor has different policies, and therefore each case is different. (from bills.com)


Medical bills do not work this way.
 
2014-01-31 06:03:51 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


So, is necrophilia back on the menu?
 
PJ-
2014-01-31 06:05:12 PM  

tlars699: PJ-: Warlordtrooper: armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.

IANAL, but I believe being admitted to the hospital and receiving care, requested or not, places the burden on the patient.

How many of those peoples had DNR orders and were kept alive against their will?

DNR is different than being kept alive.

I thought they had a clause in there about requiring machinery to sustain life, and having you initial that part if you didn't want it? Am I wrong?

IANAL


Ex-girlfriend was a doctor, and from what she learned, everything you want has to be spelled out to the letter.  If you say DNR, they just won't start your heart again, but will keep you alive (ventilators for instance) unless you say otherwise.  Don't blame hospitals or the doctors, blame lawyers and families who couldn't accept the death of a loved one.
 
2014-01-31 06:05:20 PM  
washington-babylon


Oh, look, another alt-troll......*PLONK
 
2014-01-31 06:06:25 PM  

profplump: MutantMotherMouse: spouses owe medical bills

That's not generally true. It can be true in community-property states (which include Texas), but as a general rule it requires a written agreement to take on anyone else's debt, including your spouse's. Obviously you should consult the rules in your particular jurisdiction for details.


Makes sense -- the community property thing. Have a friend w/ astonimical medical bills and a lot of assets. He was recently told he has a few months, at best, to live. He and his wife were in the process of a divorce prior to his illness, reconciled during his treatment, but never dismissed the divorce. Attorney told them to finalize the divorce, agreeing that she gets the stuff before his debtors clean them both out. Reckon he owes the old girl whatever he can leave her as they were divorcing due to his mid-life crisis. Seems the younger-than-his-daughters girlfriend didn't stick around to wipe his almost dead arse.
 
2014-01-31 06:09:22 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


Yea, I am sure bills aren't already on the way...after all, hospitals aren't in the business of profits, they are in the business of human care and compass.s.s.s....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  Wow, you aren't from around here are ya?
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-31 06:11:59 PM  
Wait until he gets the "legal service fee" for the hospital's lawyers.
 
2014-01-31 06:13:33 PM  
Since they were both EMT's I'm guessing they had insurance.  So the first fight will be insurance co. vs hospital with the insurance co arguing that since she was medically dead in November, many procedures taking place after that were ineligible for coverage.

Now following that, it would be logical that the bill would fall to the patient as tends to happen when insurance denies a hospital claim.  Throwing this for a loop though is the fact they were in court fighting to keep her on artificial support through a misreading of the law while the family argued for care to end.

I'm no fark legal beagle, but it seems like unless they want to go back to court and fight some more over the bill regarding unwanted services rendered, the hospital should cut its losses.
 
2014-01-31 06:17:43 PM  

what_now: Actually, this headline is unfair to medieval medical practitioners.  Sure, they thought that opening a vein cured evil humors and they tended to just pray a lot, but even monks and nuns would give a dying person an herbal concoction to "sleep" while the prayed over them and they died.


Yeah, this.

Say what you will about Bible-based lawmaking, but the GOP (and Texas in particular) has gone far, far beyond it.

Serious Black: I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

The clinic in New Mexico that performed a series of unsolicited enemas and colonoscopies on a "drug suspect" sent the victim a bill.  So nothing should surprise you in this case.
 
2014-01-31 06:18:48 PM  

Clever Neologism: He will be on the hook for the bill, guaranteed.


You know what, lets say he is,  I for one can't wait for all the conservatives to start defending the government of texas mandating that he purchase a service neither he nor his wife wanted.  That will be hilarious.
 
2014-01-31 06:19:13 PM  

efgeise: I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.


Whats really sick about this is that there is no trimester/weeks/month description in the law.  3 months?  3 weeks pregnant?  At conception?  These people think so.  Should we be doing pregnancy tests on all women who come in comatose just in case?

On Point with Tom Ashbrook (which is a great show generally) had a depressing show on this.  Basically everyone on the show, pro-life, pro-choice, legal experts, the damn guy who drafted the bill...all of them came  to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a living will be followed in Texas if you are pregnant.
 
2014-01-31 06:22:20 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox



He's probably getting statements of benefit from the insurance company.  They say what the insurance will/won't cover, and have an amount he might have to pay if he receives a bill from the provider.

Often the provider bills are different than what the statement says though, especially if a claim is outright denied, and provider bills often don't show up for weeks after the procedures.
 
2014-01-31 06:22:25 PM  

Active introvert: The hospital shouldn't have the suck up the entire bill because they were following the law.


They were following what they assumed to be the law. As the woman was already dead, the law being cited since then was not one that ever applied to her situation.
 
2014-01-31 06:23:14 PM  

vudukungfu: Here's a nice lady who had her husband kill her son then commit suicide, so an intern had her involuntarily locked up in the nut house against her will. They will probably attempt to bill her.


This just made me physically ill..

/her 'siblings' should rot in hell, if one existed
// oh yes, involuntary committal sounds like it
 
2014-01-31 06:23:27 PM  

MutantMotherMouse: profplump: MutantMotherMouse: spouses owe medical bills

That's not generally true. It can be true in community-property states (which include Texas), but as a general rule it requires a written agreement to take on anyone else's debt, including your spouse's. Obviously you should consult the rules in your particular jurisdiction for details.

Makes sense -- the community property thing. Have a friend w/ astonimical medical bills and a lot of assets. He was recently told he has a few months, at best, to live. He and his wife were in the process of a divorce prior to his illness, reconciled during his treatment, but never dismissed the divorce. Attorney told them to finalize the divorce, agreeing that she gets the stuff before his debtors clean them both out. Reckon he owes the old girl whatever he can leave her as they were divorcing due to his mid-life crisis. Seems the younger-than-his-daughters girlfriend didn't stick around to wipe his almost dead arse.


While I have little sympathy for the guy due to his whole midlife crisis causing his divorce,  I have absolutely zero sympathy for the companies that will try and collect on a guys debts against someone who did not incur those debts.   Hopefully she tells them to go fark themselves.
 
2014-01-31 06:25:04 PM  

Active introvert: The hospital did provide treatment and life saving measures prior to declaring her brain dead. I think he should pay for that.


As a Canadian I find that statement absolutely amazing.
 
2014-01-31 06:26:33 PM  

efgeise: There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.


Nope. She was dead. The law never applied to her situation.
 
2014-01-31 06:27:24 PM  

flondrix: fickenchucker: Chances are the guy, like many Americans, has minimal assets, so if he gets the bills, just go bankrupt. It's not really that hard to hide a few tens of thousands if he has it.

Bankruptcy changed during the whole housing bubble collapse.  Nowadays, if you aren't a corporation, it is very hard to declare bankruptcy.


Set up a shell corporation so that anything you do is done under the corporation, therefore all lawsuits have to go through the corporation which can declare bankruptcy.  Then start a new corporation.
 
2014-01-31 06:29:20 PM  

efgeise: qorkfiend: efgeise: PsiChick: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.

She had a living will. They ignored it.

/Sleep tight

It's not the hospital's fault though. There were legally required to keep her on life support because she was pregnant at the time.

Is this the part of the thread where we ignore the judge's rulings that say the hospital grossly misinterpreted the law?

And then they shut down the machines when the judge ruled that they misinterpreted the laws. I'm still not seeing the source of outrage against the hospital.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter. ...



Here's the outrage for the hospital:

The hospital's legal counsel is a well known anti-abortionist and constructed the argument that this woman fell under the law regarding pregnant women in comas - even the law's authors said it was wrong. He was also the campaign treasurer for the original judge in the case that delayed it week after week.

Once a journalist turned up the connection to the judge, she summarily withdrew from the case with little explanation.  A new judge was selected and then ruled that their interpretation was grossly faulty within a week.

Virtually all blame resides with the hospital and its administrators.
 
2014-01-31 06:32:25 PM  

Active introvert: Wait, she did go to the hospital after the initial event. The hospital did provide treatment and life saving measures prior to declaring her brain dead. I think he should pay for that. After they declared her brain dead and he wished to have efforts terminated, then there should be a dispute about that portion of the bill. The hospital shouldn't have the suck up the entire bill because they were following the law. It wasn't like they were doing it to just be douches or for some religious reason. It is a law.


I will agree that the agreed upon care should be paid for  (ideally covered by insurance)  But after the husband made the decision to let her go because that was her wish,  Anything after that is 100% on the hospital.  Only the man and his wifes opinion on the issue of terminating life care is important,  The rest of the family, the hospital and not even the state of texas have a legal say in anything that goes on.  ONLY the man and his wife get to make this decision.

Also following the law?  Really you are going to go with the godwin defense?  ... You know who else was "just following the law".....  Never has nor will it ever be a valid argument.
 
2014-01-31 06:32:43 PM  

tlars699: parasol: Slam Bradley: brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Not to keep piling it on...but it can't be said enough on this topic.  She had a living will.  It was ignored because she was pregnant and it conflicted with this law:    Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

If hospitals want to be dicks about it, under Texas law it might be impossible to have your living will honored if you are pregnant, no matter how particular you are with the directives.

In fact, in 26 states, there are laws that allow for living wills to be ignored if the patient is pregnant.  26!!!!!!

This is why I think women of child-bearing age should add an addendum to their living wills to the effect of "If I am pregnant within ( x ) trimester/week window ( x further directive x )" - and have bio dad sign it as well.

THAT would make for some serious derpitude

NO. >_< Just NO. This is not a good idea.
Her husband, if she has one? Yes.
But bio dad of the kid involved is just NO.


Having anybody else involved in one's end of life wishes is rather no.
 
2014-01-31 06:33:51 PM  

efgeise: I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.

It's going to be shiatty if they go after the family though.


Their hands were never tied. Look at the bolded part. It NEVER APPLIED TO HER SITUATION. SHE HAD NO LIFE TO SUSTAIN.
 
2014-01-31 06:42:05 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: Smeggy Smurf: TV's Vinnie: IMO, the hospital should only be paid up until the point where the husband asked to have his wife taken off life support.

Any other charges after that is the hospital's obscene violation of human rights, and if they really want to push it, they'd better bring some KY to the courtroom or the husband's lawyers are going in dry.

You know you're farked when I agree with a left wing farktard

That's MISTER left wing farktard to you, boy.

Ha!  That's your new farky.

[www.awsm.com image 620x468]

The first round of whiskey is on me


Hey, that's kinda cool.  Here it be on amazon:  http://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Skull-Pirate-Glass-Cocktail/dp/B007VZGV I C/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1391211665&sr=8-5&keywords=skull+inside+mug
 
2014-01-31 06:42:23 PM  
The insurance will not pay for "treatment" after the patient was dead. The hospital is going to have to eat the cost.
 
2014-01-31 06:55:45 PM  
static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-31 06:56:11 PM  

xria: Billy Bathsalt: Reminds me of how they charge you for the bullet that executes your loved ones in China.

So you think this story is most likely an urban legend?

Or are you thinking of Iran?


how did you get ^ that from ^^ that ?
 
2014-01-31 06:59:18 PM  
 And i'm sure the hospitals decision to keep her on life support had nothing  to do with the insane bill they got to charge every day.
 
2014-01-31 07:02:40 PM  

MBrady: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.

FTFA:  In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home - although he's not sure exactly what he will be expected to pay.

reading - it's not that hard.

if I were him, I'd send the bills to 0bama and botox


Hold on Captain - he may be getting bills for services provided before this terrible decision was made to keep her on life support.

Regardless of how you feel about the continued application of life support, he (his insurance) should be billed for services up to that point.
 
2014-01-31 07:05:45 PM  
I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.
 
2014-01-31 07:17:14 PM  

archichris: I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.


For the public record, if I am dead and rotting on the table like this unfortunate woman, I silently assent to have the plug pulled.  Or I would, if I weren't dead already.  Also, if like this woman, I have a DNR, you assholes best DNR.  Please and thank you.
 
2014-01-31 07:24:38 PM  
She had a DNR; the law was on her side, not the hospital's.

So suck on the bill, hospital.
 
2014-01-31 07:28:14 PM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


This. And only the executor/executrix can spend on behalf of the estate.

The hospital has placed itself in the role of executor by authorizing unrequested expenses on the body, and has shown conflict of interest by billing the estate they were managing for their own services. Any professional that did this (e.g., an accountant which billed the estate for services not requested by the deceased) would be barred from practicing again.

If the probate judge has any sense, they'll see it this way, and it'll be handled like any other executor which attempts to get reimbursed by an estate for unauthorized expenses. YOU GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!
 
2014-01-31 07:30:05 PM  
All this talk makes me wonder...

If ghosts were real, would there be little aborted fetus ghosts wandering around all the time?

Great hordes of little fetuses runnin' around the abortion clinics...
 
2014-01-31 07:36:37 PM  

WhoGAS: All this talk makes me wonder...

If ghosts were real, would there be little aborted fetus ghosts wandering around all the time?

Great hordes of little fetuses runnin' around the abortion clinics...


And miscarried fetuses, too.

I hate you forever.
 
2014-01-31 07:39:53 PM  
no obvious tag?
 
2014-01-31 07:45:38 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


Bullshiat. It had severe hydrocephalous and was found to be non-viable. Non-viable means IT CAN'T LIVE. THERE WAS NO BABY TO BE HAD. PERIOD.

Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?
 
2014-01-31 07:47:06 PM  

MutantMotherMouse: mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.

spouses owe medical bills


Yes ..

I am a spouse of a person who had massive medical bills. I had to declare chap 13 bankruptcy along with him, even though I had no medical bills of my own, minimal debt and pretty good credit.

To add insult to injury - we were not even officially married at the time of the medical disaster. We were "common law" married in Kansas - because we filed taxes together.

So, yeah - he's gonna get a bill.
 
2014-01-31 08:01:56 PM  

gadian: archichris: I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.

For the public record, if I am dead and rotting on the table like this unfortunate woman, I silently assent to have the plug pulled.  Or I would, if I weren't dead already.  Also, if like this woman, I have a DNR, you assholes best DNR.  Please and thank you.


I think the issue was the viability of the fetus, which was a legal blind spot for whatever reason. But the more appalling part of the whole issue is the complete cultural insensitivity that the left is bringing to the table. As long as we are talking about the high and mighty moral-ism of the pro-life crowd can we discuss the cultural elitism of the godless? I mean it takes some really highly developed prejudice to condemn an entire state because you happen to differ with their common law regarding life support?

But whatever, it isnt like the left isnt already a bastion of hatred and elitism, adding this issue to that is just an extra lump of sugar in the tea.
 
2014-01-31 08:09:30 PM  

emersonbiggins: washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.

So, is necrophilia back on the menu?


Is it necrophilia if she's only brain dead?
 
2014-01-31 08:20:02 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


I listened to that as well. You must have missed the part about a lack of requirement by any person to take any action, no matter how minor, to save the life of another.
 
2014-01-31 08:21:07 PM  

MeanJean: washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.

Bullshiat. It had severe hydrocephalous and was found to be non-viable. Non-viable means IT CAN'T LIVE. THERE WAS NO BABY TO BE HAD. PERIOD.

Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?


Hmmm... why should I care, exactly? Why should anyone care what happens to their corpse after they die? If you are an atheist there's no reason to care because you view death as a cessation of existence. If you are a Christian, "You" (your soul) is long gone after you die, having fled the corrupt and sinful body according to most theologians. And the same is true with most cultures. However, it is disrespectful and extremely unsanitary to fark a corpse, so most sane cultures frown on the practice. Bottom line is, EWWW, but I won't care.


/In the case of the baby... if it was non-viable, then yank the plug.
//And is Necrophilia even possible if only the brain is dead? Or is that Rape?
 
2014-01-31 08:28:32 PM  

scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.


FTFA: "In an interview   with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Erick Muñoz acknowledged that he has been receiving medical bills at his home"

Later it says the hospitals have stated they will 'continue normal billing' or whatever.
 
2014-01-31 08:29:03 PM  
This sadly does not come as a surprise to me.
 
2014-01-31 08:37:25 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


The kid was horrible deformed, with no brain and the bottom half (not just the legs) so badly deformed they couldn't determine gender.

Also, she's brain dead, NOT IN A COMA. The media use the terms interchangeably but they are very very different.  The pro-life side pushed out a bunch of studies claiming a baby can survive but in all the cases the Mom was either in a coma or it happened much farther along in the pregnancy (Marlise was barely 2 months along).
 
2014-01-31 08:43:01 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


Are you a liar, idiot, or troll?
 
2014-01-31 08:44:30 PM  

MeanJean: Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?


Like this? NSFW

/if that's the kind of person you are, who's to stop you?
//if I'm dead, I assure you I won't care.
 
2014-01-31 08:48:38 PM  

washington-babylon: MeanJean: washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.

Bullshiat. It had severe hydrocephalous and was found to be non-viable. Non-viable means IT CAN'T LIVE. THERE WAS NO BABY TO BE HAD. PERIOD.

Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?

Hmmm... why should I care, exactly? Why should anyone care what happens to their corpse after they die? If you are an atheist there's no reason to care because you view death as a cessation of existence. If you are a Christian, "You" (your soul) is long gone after you die, having fled the corrupt and sinful body according to most theologians. And the same is true with most cultures. However, it is disrespectful and extremely unsanitary to fark a corpse, so most sane cultures frown on the practice. Bottom line is, EWWW, but I won't care.


/In the case of the baby... if it was non-viable, then yank the plug.
//And is Necrophilia even possible if only the brain is dead? Or is that Rape?


Necrophilia is rape, as the dead cannot consent.

And I wasn't planning on farking your corpse. I just want to make your skull into a charming teapot.

/waste not, want not.
 
2014-01-31 08:49:37 PM  

wambu: MeanJean: Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?

Like this? NSFW

/if that's the kind of person you are, who's to stop you?
//if I'm dead, I assure you I won't care.


I have another volunteer for my art projects!
 
2014-01-31 09:01:26 PM  

MeanJean: wambu: MeanJean: Also, if the dead have no rights, I'm sure you'll be okay with me defiling your corpse, right?

Like this? NSFW

/if that's the kind of person you are, who's to stop you?
//if I'm dead, I assure you I won't care.

I have another volunteer for my art projects!


Hi, Mr. Mapplethorpe! How have you been?
 
2014-01-31 09:11:26 PM  
It's because of this that I changed my advanced directive to instruct doctors not to keep me alive with a machine even if I am pregnant.

My wife isn't sure what to make of that.
 
2014-01-31 09:11:29 PM  
Let the worthless farks in the Texass legislature pay it.
 
2014-01-31 09:15:47 PM  

FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.


She was an adult. Her medical bills were hers. The bill will go to her estate.
 
2014-01-31 09:17:54 PM  
She was an adult. Her medical bills were hers. The bill will go to her estate.
 
2014-01-31 09:19:23 PM  

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


It was a girl...they think.   The lower extremities were deformed and it was difficult to determine gender conclusively.   The fetus had heart abnormalities and fluid in the cranium.  So it's unlikely the child would have been viable.
 
2014-01-31 09:37:50 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: efgeise: I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that it's probably a shiatty thing to do, especially when the baby wasn't viable, but they were legally required to follow the law. I'm not sure of how the law is worded, but if the law is quoted like this:
Slam Bradley:
Sec. 166.049. PREGNANT PATIENTS. A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient (the subchapter being the code regarding living wills)

then their hands are tied on the matter.

It's going to be shiatty if they go after the family though.

Their hands were never tied. Look at the bolded part. It NEVER APPLIED TO HER SITUATION. SHE HAD NO LIFE TO SUSTAIN.


I'm curious if there had been prior cases cases that tested that theory in Texas courts.

I can sympathize that the hospital felt caught between breaking a law on one hand and defying a family's final wishes on the other.  They probably made the decision that felt would have the least amount of legal repercussions. I noticed that the hospital didn't appeal the court decision, they didn't wait until the last moment to remove her from the machines, and they released a statement that said that their goal was to follow the law.  They didn't seem any more eager to keep her going than the family did.

It's a bad law and another case of a legislature inserting itself into complex medical decisions.
 
2014-01-31 09:42:15 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: She was an adult. Her medical bills were hers. The bill will go to her estate.


Medical bills for treatment that she didn't want or need and those speaking for her didn't want.

Learn to read.
 
2014-01-31 09:46:02 PM  

washington-babylon: /In the case of the baby... if it was non-viable, then yank the plug.
//And is Necrophilia even possible if only the brain is dead? Or is that Rape?


If the brain is dead the body is dead. Period.
 
2014-01-31 10:21:36 PM  
Next step to be taken by the state of Texas: Execute the husband.

Why? Because FARK YOU, that's why.
 
2014-01-31 10:26:42 PM  
Send the bill to the state government since they are the ones responsible for this fiasco.
 
2014-01-31 10:29:45 PM  

archichris: gadian: archichris: I take it from the general tone of Fark that when it comes to medical decisions, silence is legal assent?

Important safety tip ladies, dont sleep with a Farker unless your living will is very specific about what the hospital should do when the emt's find you choked into an unresponsive state.....

Talk about medieval..... the man says kill the biatch, so lets pull the plug.

For the public record, if I am dead and rotting on the table like this unfortunate woman, I silently assent to have the plug pulled.  Or I would, if I weren't dead already.  Also, if like this woman, I have a DNR, you assholes best DNR.  Please and thank you.

I think the issue was the viability of the fetus, which was a legal blind spot for whatever reason. But the more appalling part of the whole issue is the complete cultural insensitivity that the left is bringing to the table. As long as we are talking about the high and mighty moral-ism of the pro-life crowd can we discuss the cultural elitism of the godless? I mean it takes some really highly developed prejudice to condemn an entire state because you happen to differ with their common law regarding life support?

But whatever, it isnt like the left isnt already a bastion of hatred and elitism, adding this issue to that is just an extra lump of sugar in the tea.


The woman had a dnr and her husband made the decision to pull the plug. That takes precedence over any other party. The married couple are the only ones who get a say and it was clear what they wanted
 
2014-01-31 10:31:57 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


Nope, I'll be outraged that they are even THINKING about sending him a bill. They made the decision to act on her behalf; they can farking pay for it.
 
2014-01-31 10:33:08 PM  
If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here
 
2014-01-31 11:18:55 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-31 11:40:20 PM  

Warlordtrooper: If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here


Because.
 
2014-01-31 11:42:41 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Warlordtrooper: If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here

Because.


Well, according to a post above, the law wasn't followed, the judge was acting in violation of conflict of interest.
 
2014-01-31 11:57:54 PM  

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

I'll reserve my outrage until we're sure the husband is getting billed even one lousy penny.


It says it right there in TFA.

Do you people not read these, or do you just ignore random parts?
 
2014-02-01 12:01:40 AM  

brantgoose: Living wills, people.  Living wills.

Defend yourself and your estate against busybodies of the left and right alike, against free entreprising HMOs and government loving social democrats, liberals, socialists, commies, Nazis and statists of the right and left.

The socalled "death panels" are designed to resolve issues raised by just such cases where the will of the decease, their family, their doctors, their HMO, their insurance company and their government do not necessarily find common ground.

Of course, I shouldn't talk. I haven't updated my will in ages. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But look out for the pitfalls of dying intestate or losing control over your own body and life due to some busybodies of State or Church or simply your own thieving greedy family members. It is so easy to talk yourself into a rationalization of why you deserve it all or why you should override the express wishes of even your loved ones. Padlock the door on that happening.


It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.
 
2014-02-01 12:55:59 AM  

Mikey1969: It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.



cheapbossattack.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-01 01:10:35 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.


" The Texas woman-a paramedic, wife, and mother-was brain dead after a suspected blood clot, but kept hooked to life support against her and and her family's wishes because a Texas law prohibited taking a pregnant woman off of life support."

Such bullshiat. They probably are the ones trying to pass the law that not even the safety of the mother could allow an abortion... One of the state's keeps trying to pass that one. Farked up for sure...
 
2014-02-01 01:14:09 AM  

Boojum2k: Gyrfalcon: Warlordtrooper: If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here

Because.

Well, according to a post above, the law wasn't followed, the judge was acting in violation of conflict of interest.


Nuremberg has nothing to do with anything about this case.

Can't get anymore irrelevant.

Really
 
2014-02-01 01:33:44 AM  

zepillin: Boojum2k: Gyrfalcon: Warlordtrooper: If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here

Because.

Well, according to a post above, the law wasn't followed, the judge was acting in violation of conflict of interest.

Nuremberg has nothing to do with anything about this case.

Can't get anymore irrelevant.

Really


Oh, I don't know about that.

files.sharenator.com
 
2014-02-01 01:39:20 AM  

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


HA! Try telling that to the dickwads who called me day and night after my husband died, insisting that he would be "ashamed of how I was handling his finances" and that since we were married, everything of his belonged to me, even his debt.

These folks were making collection calls on the motorcycle he died on. I told them they could go EABOD.

I can't imagine this poor family dealing with anything else. They need to sue SO hard. DNR's are legal documents. It's the same as malpractice if you violate a DNR.
 
2014-02-01 01:45:50 AM  

Mikey1969: Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.

" The Texas woman-a paramedic, wife, and mother-was brain dead after a suspected blood clot, but kept hooked to life support against her and and her family's wishes because a Texas law prohibited taking a pregnant woman off of life support."

Such bullshiat. They probably are the ones trying to pass the law that not even the safety of the mother could allow an abortion... One of the state's keeps trying to pass that one. Farked up for sure...


Read what you typed again.
 
2014-02-01 01:46:16 AM  

Slypork: I'm not outraged yet. The hospital's computers start processing the bills automatically and sending them out. It's not like Smedley in accounting decided personally to write up the bill and send it to the poor widower.

I'll save my outrage until after the hospital decides to pursue him for payment.


Hospital computers don't just churn out numbers- they have to be given data. Computers don't know what medicines were given, obviously.

Doctors write up diagnoses and procedure codes in the chart, nurses write up pharmacology codes, etc. These codes are all given to the billers who work for the hospital. They code them
and enter them in, creating bills. So you're wrong in that no, it's not automatic, but it's also not malicious. Coders get a zillion charts a day to sort out and input into UB04's, which are inpatient hospital coding claim forms.

But they would have been partial bills, since you can't complete bills until the patient is either discharged or declared dead and sent to the morgue.

/biller for 7 years
 
2014-02-01 01:54:12 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.

" The Texas woman-a paramedic, wife, and mother-was brain dead after a suspected blood clot, but kept hooked to life support against her and and her family's wishes because a Texas law prohibited taking a pregnant woman off of life support."

Such bullshiat. They probably are the ones trying to pass the law that not even the safety of the mother could allow an abortion... One of the state's keeps trying to pass that one. Farked up for sure...

Read what you typed again.


Lol... Missed that. Twice.
*Life support
 
2014-02-01 01:55:00 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: Satanic_Hamster: Mikey1969: It sounds like in Texas a living will doesn't mean doodly shiat though. It says that they can't take a pregnant woman off of birth control, so I think the living will would be trumped by the law, which would totally suck.

" The Texas woman-a paramedic, wife, and mother-was brain dead after a suspected blood clot, but kept hooked to life support against her and and her family's wishes because a Texas law prohibited taking a pregnant woman off of life support."

Such bullshiat. They probably are the ones trying to pass the law that not even the safety of the mother could allow an abortion... One of the state's keeps trying to pass that one. Farked up for sure...

Read what you typed again.


if only tx law made it illegal to withdraw or withhold birth control from pregnant patients... so many problems could be averted... :)
 
2014-02-01 02:05:58 AM  

LessO2: If he gets the bills, he should go to Austin with a gaggle of reporters, drop the bills on Rick Perry's desk while cameras are rolling and if he and his God Squad will pay for this.


Actually, it looks like the hospital was going beyond what the law requires.

mrlewish: Her family doesn't owe anything. The dead woman's estate might but no not the family.

You can't pass debt to another person.


Good point.  She was dead and dead people can't take on obligations.

brantgoose: Living wills, people. Living wills.


They wouldn't help in this case.  Her wishes were known--the hospital claimed state law didn't allow them to comply.  (It looks like this is not the case, though, you can't keep a dead person alive so the law doesn't fit--it was the hospital doing it on their own.)

genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?


Live--no.  Life support was pulled before viability.  A chance?  Unknown.  It is known that there were SEVERE defects but whether his brain was as fried as hers is unknown.

armor helix: As dumb as the whole thing is, the hospital may have legal precedent to collect all of the medical bills. People that have been admitted to hospitals against their will or without consent (mental institutions, ambulances to hospital after passing out drunk) have contested hospital bills and it seems like they always lose.


Yes and no.  I do agree that under normal circumstances all the bills would be valid but once she was dead (and I'm under the impression the hospital dwadled on checking that) I would think things would change.

flondrix: Bankruptcy changed during the whole housing bubble collapse. Nowadays, if you aren't a corporation, it is very hard to declare bankruptcy.


No.  What changed was walking away from your debts when you could have paid part of them.  Chapter 7s became 11s.
 
2014-02-01 05:46:31 AM  

scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.


Actually, the article clearly states that he has in fact received several bills.  He just isn't sure which if any he has to pay, which is another way of saying "I'm playing dumb here, hoping this goes away".

If they sent a bill (and they have sent several) then they expect to be paid.  It's pretty much idiotic to think otherwise, since there is not a tiny bit of evidence that hospitals are run by human beings rather than accountants and lawyers.
 
2014-02-01 06:39:51 AM  

zepillin: Boojum2k: Gyrfalcon: Warlordtrooper: If following the law didn't work at Nuremberg why are people arguing it as a defense of the hospitals actions here

Because.

Well, according to a post above, the law wasn't followed, the judge was acting in violation of conflict of interest.

Nuremberg has nothing to do with anything about this case.

Can't get anymore irrelevant.

Really


They were essentially performing medical experiments on a human being. Of all the nazi comparisons out there this is actually one of the more accurate.
 
2014-02-01 07:29:44 AM  

Kahabut: If they sent a bill (and they have sent several) then they expect to be paid. It's pretty much idiotic to think otherwise, since there is not a tiny bit of evidence that hospitals are run by human beings rather than accountants and lawyers.


Not necessarily.  These may be the statments sent prior to them being sent to the insurance company - more of a "this is what we're going to be charging you and your insurance company" instead of a "balance due now" bill.  At least that's the way Banner Health does things here.
 
2014-02-01 09:10:51 AM  

cynicalminion: if only tx law made it illegal to withdraw or withhold birth control from pregnant patients... so many problems could be averted... :)


I know, right?
 
2014-02-01 09:33:43 AM  
Any medical treatment to her after death is medically unnecessary. Insurance doesn't pay for medically unnecessary treatment. The husband won't either since he didn't want such efforts. The state didn't require this treatment and the hospital knew that. The hospital (the state, really) will eat the charges.
 
2014-02-01 09:46:04 AM  

kiwimoogle84: Coders get a zillion charts a day to sort out and input into UB04's, which are inpatient hospital coding claim forms.

But they would have been partial bills, since you can't complete bills until the patient is either discharged or declared dead and sent to the morgue.

/biller for 7 years


I imagine they've racked up quite a bit of professional charges in addition to the facility charges. Those doctors didn't come in to look at a chart, say "yup, still brain dead" for free after all.
 
2014-02-01 12:19:27 PM  

washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.


If the fetus can't survive without any outside help then it isn't a viable human, it's still in the parasite category.
 
2014-02-01 01:19:53 PM  

Girion47: washington-babylon: genner: Did the child live? Did he ever have a chance of coming out of this alive?

According to the NPR piece about this, The child is alive and will probably survive if they leave her on support. They did detect some possible deformity with one of the child's legs, but that alone is not enough in texas to allow them to pull the plug. Regardless what the woman wanted or what the husband wants, there is another life in the picture that also has rights. Before all the "Women have the right to abort" folks jump on this, I have to point out that this woman is Brain dead. She has no further rights, and the only rights at stake here are the rights of the still living child in her womb. For all intents and purposes, she (her body, at least) has become a strange artificial/natural womb that can continue to support the child until delivery. The father needs to shut up and man up.

If the fetus can't survive without any outside help then it isn't a viable human, it's still in the parasite category.


Sooooo basically until their mid 30';s.
 
2014-02-01 01:47:19 PM  

gadian: Kahabut: If they sent a bill (and they have sent several) then they expect to be paid. It's pretty much idiotic to think otherwise, since there is not a tiny bit of evidence that hospitals are run by human beings rather than accountants and lawyers.

Not necessarily.  These may be the statments sent prior to them being sent to the insurance company - more of a "this is what we're going to be charging you and your insurance company" instead of a "balance due now" bill.  At least that's the way Banner Health does things here.


You make a fair point actually, I didn't really consider that.

I wouldn't label that a bill, but I'll bet the news media would if it generates more outrage.  ;)
 
2014-02-01 02:30:47 PM  

MeanJean: Benjimin_Dover: She was an adult. Her medical bills were hers. The bill will go to her estate.

Medical bills for treatment that she didn't want or need and those speaking for her didn't want.

Learn to read.


I have read that. I didn't say she or her estate should have to pay it. Her estate would be the one to fight it. Not her family. Not her neighbors. Not her pets. That's because the bill wouldn't be going to her family or her neighbors or her pets. It would be going to her which is her estate after she died.

And even if there is a law that says the hospital had to keep her alive, I would say that the entity that mandated it should pay. I feel the same way when it comes to 13 year old girls that go and get elective medical treatments and the state has laws that prevent the parents from being notified. OK. That's fine. But if parents are removed from the process of contracting those services, then don't go looking to them to pay for them.
 
2014-02-01 03:31:11 PM  

Kahabut: scottydoesntknow: FlashHarry: that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.

To be fair, it doesn't say they are receiving the medical bills. It says they might.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a sick, appalling story. But subby's headline is acting like it already happened.

Actually, the article clearly states that he has in fact received several bills.  He just isn't sure which if any he has to pay, which is another way of saying "I'm playing dumb here, hoping this goes away".

If they sent a bill (and they have sent several) then they expect to be paid.  It's pretty much idiotic to think otherwise, since there is not a tiny bit of evidence that hospitals are run by human beings rather than accountants and lawyers.



A situation like this would generate many bills from different providers.  I had a rather low end emergency once and got a bill from the city for ambulance, a hospital bill for facilities and supplies, and then one for the ER doctor who was a part of a company operating within the hospital.  Similar things are true for the various specialists.

Given its conclusion has happened recently, I imagine the bills he has now are for things like ambulance transport in November and the initial ER response.  Insurance will cover some of that, but not 100% because of co-pay and deductible.

For other items, he may have explanations of benefit from the insurance co, which aren't bills to be paid and in many cases don't reflect what you'll be asked to pay (if anything) by the provider.
 
2014-02-01 11:19:40 PM  
several farkers predicted they'd get stuck with a huge bill.
 
Displayed 200 of 200 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report