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 83
    More: Sick, DailyKos, medical bills  
•       •       •

18460 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-01-31 04:12:45 PM  
11 votes:
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 04:00:39 PM  
9 votes:
Five bucks the hospital will try to use the bill as leverage against the coming lawsuit.
2014-01-31 03:35:06 PM  
8 votes:
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 03:59:27 PM  
7 votes:
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 02:55:29 PM  
7 votes:
that poor woman's family. how appallingly awful.
2014-01-31 04:52:02 PM  
6 votes:

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 04:42:17 PM  
6 votes:

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 03:18:43 PM  
6 votes:

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 03:05:38 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2014-01-31 05:58:44 PM  
5 votes:

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 05:13:15 PM  
5 votes:

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 03:00:14 PM  
5 votes:

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 06:29:20 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:37:36 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:31:50 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:10:39 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:57:59 PM  
4 votes:
If you live in Texas, it shouldn't come as any surprise
2014-01-31 04:42:53 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:19:32 PM  
3 votes:
2014-01-31 04:19:07 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:17:27 PM  
3 votes:

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

Texas.
2014-01-31 04:04:33 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:03:58 PM  
3 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-31 03:08:48 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:31:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:19:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:03:51 PM  
2 votes:

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?
2014-01-31 06:00:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:50:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:21:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:15:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:58:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:23:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:21:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:19:10 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:07:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:03:54 PM  
2 votes:
Old and Busted:  Death Panels

New Hotness:  Life Panels
2014-01-31 03:59:32 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:50:05 PM  
2 votes:

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


img.fark.net

mmmmm. outragelicious.
2014-01-31 03:31:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:12:56 PM  
2 votes:

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
2014-02-01 01:19:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:33:43 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:05:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:39:20 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-31 11:40:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:37:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:20:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:45:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:24:38 PM  
1 votes:
She had a DNR; the law was on her side, not the hospital's.

So suck on the bill, hospital.
2014-01-31 07:17:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:05:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:26:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:25:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:23:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:23:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:18:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:17:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:06:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:05:20 PM  
1 votes:
washington-babylon


Oh, look, another alt-troll......*PLONK
2014-01-31 06:03:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:56:11 PM  
1 votes:
Hospital chooses to keep her on life support against her wishes.
Hospital gets to pick up the bill.
Simple.
2014-01-31 05:50:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:45:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:30:13 PM  
1 votes:

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
PJ-
2014-01-31 05:24:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:22:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:03:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:47:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:32:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


No on both counts.
2014-01-31 04:28:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:23:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:19:43 PM  
1 votes:
What is the penalty to the hospital for not following the law?
2014-01-31 04:15:23 PM  
1 votes:
I wondered about that.  I guess the hospital went there.
2014-01-31 04:06:24 PM  
1 votes:
The Free Market TM in action?
2014-01-31 04:06:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:06:04 PM  
1 votes:
I doubt he has much more money after paying lawyer's fees.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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