Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sick, DailyKos, medical bills  
•       •       •

18468 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:53 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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