Local girl injured at TL

[sar1980sweetie]

This may be a bit off topic, but still related in a way, here in Massachusetts we are required to have health insurance. As of December 31st, 2007 - every resident in Massachusetts had to have coverage, whether it be through a company we are employed by, therefor getting it deducted from our paycheck every week, or by paying monthly. I just wasn't sure if there were any other states who have this law???

Sadly, not every state has that law. I know here in NY there are people who don't have health insurance for whatever reason. There are "discounted" or "free" insurance plans for low income families or for children of low income families, but it is not required that I know of. On the other hand, to go to a state college or university here we have to have health insurance, and unless we show proof of private insurance they charge us for the school's insurance.

I just can't believe someone wouldn't have their children insured at least! If they can afford a Disney vacation, they can afford health insurance for their children... either that or they sold their brains to science and used the money to be able to afford the trip. :hammer:

 

[True Knowledge]

How irresponsible. Your logic makes no sense. If you didn't have insurance you would splurge on a trip? How about splurging on the health and safety of your family?

Most people pitch in something from their paycheck on insurance, so in reality you would be bringing home more if you had no insurance, so what splurge are you talking about.

My logic is that I believe that all children should be able to enjoy themselves in what is perceived to be a safe environment. I hope they win to be honest, or at least come to a settlement. As said by another poster, not everyone in this world is as blessed as you or I to have health insurance provided by an employer, or to obtain it in such a simple fashion. I don’t think that these people’s children should be barred from having fun at a local attraction every once in a while because of it. Also it seems a bit judgmental of you to label me “irresponsible”, or the parents of the injured girl for that matter.

It’s just hard for me to imagine living life only for health insurance.

 

[scpergj]

My logic is that I believe that all children should be able to enjoy themselves in what is perceived to be a safe environment. I hope they win to be honest, or at least come to a settlement. As said by another poster, not everyone in this world is as blessed as you or I to have health insurance provided by an employer, or to obtain it in such a simple fashion. I don’t think that these people’s children should be barred from having fun at a local attraction every once in a while because of it. Also it seems a bit judgmental of you to label me “irresponsible”, or the parents of the injured girl for that matter.

It’s just hard for me to imagine living life only for health insurance.

Well, this is where I would love a 'Looser Pays' court system. I hope they don't get a thing...and here's why...

In Florida, we have children's insurance available from the state, for between $25 and $50 a month, depending on income. This is posted in every welfare office, public school and pediatrician's office I have ever been in. If they couldn't even spare that little amount of money to take care of their child, they absolutely had no business suing someone for their own lack of insurance.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this argument that they couldn't afford it...no reason for not having your kids insured, at least in Florida!

I'm surprised that another of the Floridians has not posted this yet...

Here is the website for Florida Kid Care - http://www.doh.state.fl.us/AlternateSites/KidCare/

Kevin

 

[MousDad]

Well, this is where I would love a 'Looser Pays' court system. I hope they don't get a thing...and here's why...

In Florida, we have children's insurance available from the state, for between $25 and $50 a month, depending on income. This is posted in every welfare office, public school and pediatrician's office I have ever been in. If they couldn't even spare that little amount of money to take care of their child, they absolutely had no business suing someone for their own lack of insurance.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this argument that they couldn't afford it...no reason for not having your kids insured, at least in Florida!

I'm surprised that another of the Floridians has not posted this yet...

Here is the website for Florida Kid Care - http://www.doh.state.fl.us/AlternateSites/KidCare/

Kevin

I didn't know A) if they were from Florida and B) that this program existed. If both are the case, then your point obviously carries more weight. I still stand by my statements in general terms.

 

[natolij02]

I might get a little flamed for this one but oh well....
Mmmm.....somone can't afford health insurance but they can go to theme/water parks? I would personally invest in health insurance for my children before taking them to theme/water parks.

Ok....I won't flame you for this but.....I will bring up one point! She was a local girl, so maybe the family was just going to the water park for the day. Now granted, priorities are important and health insurance should be tops on ones list of importance but, the amount the family spent to go to a water park for the day does not by any means compare to the cost of health insurance. There is no way you can compare a $40.00 ticket to the hundreds of dollars for insurance. Now not knowing the family and their itinerary or how often they do something like this, I can only assume their intention at the start of the day was to possible allow their kids to have fun since I would assume they probably do not have a ton of money and this was probably a "special treat" for them. I know if I were in a situation like that without health insurance, I would still try and offer at least once a year a fun day at a park of some sort. That doesn't make me a bad mom, or someone who doesn't have their priorites straight. That just makes me, a mom trying to give my kid somewhat of a fun childhood memory.

Now as for suing Disney.....every situation is different and from what I read, the suing is unjustified and that parent should seriously consider the ramifications and the costs she will incur from suing if she loses.

 

[jakeman]

I am not singling you out personally, just responding to the converstaion.

I can understand the emotional side of wanting to provide a fun day out for your children, but the cold fact is your child's safety and health comes first. Everything else, including fun, is secondary.

There are options for providing health care for children regardless of income level or economic status. Additionally, if you can't afford the long term cost of a child, such as health care, then you should have reconsidered getting pregnant in the first place.

I want to emphasize that "you" doesn't refer to a poster, just society in general.

 

[scpergj]

I didn't know A) if they were from Florida and B) that this program existed. If both are the case, then your point obviously carries more weight. I still stand by my statements in general terms.

Then maybe you should read the article...or the title of the thread??:hammer:

 

[scpergj]

I am not singling you out personally, just responding to the converstaion.

I can understand the emotional side of wanting to provide a fun day out for your children, but the cold fact is your child's safety and health comes first. Everything else, including fun, is secondary.

There are options for providing health care for children regardless of income level or economic status. Additionally, if you can't afford the long term cost of a child, such as health care, then you should have reconsidered getting pregnant in the first place.

I want to emphasize that "you" doesn't refer to a poster, just society in general.

Jake...I cannot find a single point to argue with you here. Too bad there aren't enough people in this world that understand these points!

 

[fosse76]

She said she just wants the thousands of dollars worth of medical bills paid. If that's all she wants paid then why are they suing? They are obviously playing up the whole thing to see what they can get. It happens all the time here in Detroit.

Obviously because Disney isn't paying for the bills. You are aware that when you sue someone, you don't have to sue for millions of dollars, right? It is very possible that they really are suing for medical damages and nothing in excess. Of course it really doesn't matter if she caused the accident herself. Since Disney acknowledges something went wrong all she has to prove is that a similar incident has happened before in order to win.

 

[fosse76]

Well, this is where I would love a 'Looser Pays' court system. I hope they don't get a thing...and here's why...

In Florida, we have children's insurance available from the state, for between $25 and $50 a month, depending on income. This is posted in every welfare office, public school and pediatrician's office I have ever been in. If they couldn't even spare that little amount of money to take care of their child, they absolutely had no business suing someone for their own lack of insurance.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this argument that they couldn't afford it...no reason for not having your kids insured, at least in Florida!

I'm surprised that another of the Floridians has not posted this yet...

Here is the website for Florida Kid Care - http://www.doh.state.fl.us/AlternateSites/KidCare/

Kevin

Some of you people are very quick to judge someone without health insurance. It really isn't up to you to decide how one should spend their money. This is why we should have national free healthcare. Opponents act as if they have to have it as well. It CAN coexist with the private insurers, and at least people who don't have healthcare would have something. It's better than nothing.

That said, it doesn't matter. She was injured (allegedly) through no fault of her own, so even if she had insurance the insurance company would want its money back. I was once injured at my second job (no insurance). I used insurance from my other job (full coverage) but still had to pay the deductible. I scoffed at paying out of pocket so I filed a claim at my job (the non-insurance job). They covered it, but my insurance company wanted compensation for the payments they made, since I wasn't liable for my own injury. The point is, IF she was legitimately injured as a result of the rides malfunction, then Disney is totally liable, and IF she had insurance they would demand recompense.

 

[VillanovaBlue]

Some of you people are very quick to judge someone without health insurance. It really isn't up to you to decide how one should spend their money. This is why we should have national free healthcare. Opponents act as if they have to have it as well. It CAN coexist with the private insurers, and at least people who don't have healthcare would have something. It's better than nothing.

That said, it doesn't matter. She was injured (allegedly) through no fault of her own, so even if she had insurance the insurance company would want its money back. I was once injured at my second job (no insurance). I used insurance from my other job (full coverage) but still had to pay the deductible. I scoffed at paying out of pocket so I filed a claim at my job (the non-insurance job). They covered it, but my insurance company wanted compensation for the payments they made, since I wasn't liable for my own injury. The point is, IF she was legitimately injured as a result of the rides malfunction, then Disney is totally liable, and IF she had insurance they would demand recompense.

It wouldn't be free...you'd be paying for it with your tax dollars...and you'd also be paying for other folks who don't have insurance now...the same ones who most likely don't pay much in taxes now either...

No thanks...

 

[fosse76]

It wouldn't be free...you'd be paying for it with your tax dollars...and you'd also be paying for other folks who don't have insurance now...the same ones who most likely don't pay much in taxes now either...

No thanks...

They don't pay much in taxes because they don't make much to pay taxes to begin with. People act as though everyone who would qualify for these social benefits are somehow scam artists who don't deserve it, when the reality shows that they are few and far between. And we pay for a lot of stuff that doesn't particularly benefit us uindividually. I pay money in taxes that support schools. I have no children. Yet education is an important fabric to society. Isn't health? My taxes go to the National Parks services. I don't go to any of the National Parks. My tax money goes to city parks, garbage collection, government salaries, the court system. Most of which I personally don't use. Should we get rid of all that. The problem is, the people being taxed higher are the wrong people they are taxing. The middle class are always screwed when it comes to this. They make too much to qualify for certain benefits, yet make too little to afford them on their own. A lot of corporations don't pay any taxes because they re-incorporate overseas in countries that don't tax them, or where they only have to pay pennies on the dollar per hour to employees. It's responses like yours that show how selfish and greedy Americans really are. If people can't afford healthcare, you blame them. You can't afford $2 more per month in taxes for others to have some form of care? The amount of money spent on this ludicrous occupation in Iraq could have saved Social Security for next 300 years and instituted a national healthcare system.

 

[MousDad]

Then maybe you should read the article...or the title of the thread??:hammer:

There's nothing in the article about a low cost health insurance program for children in the state of Florida. Even if I had at the time noticed she was local from the title of the thread, I still would never have made the connection. A connection which, still, has no bearing on the veracity of my statements.

Sorry, but your :hammer:was unwarranted.

 

[MousDad]

Jake...I cannot find a single point to argue with you here. Too bad there aren't enough people in this world that understand these points!

Kevin and Jake, my 3 points were

1) Having health insurance for your family is more important than expensive vactions.

2) Having health insurance is not as easy as some posters are making it sound.

3) I don't think it's fair to say that people who don't have health insurance should not be at a Disney Park.

Aside from the Florida thingey, which of these points do you disagree with and why?

 

[MousDad]

I can understand the emotional side of wanting to provide a fun day out for your children, but the cold fact is your child's safety and health comes first. Everything else, including fun, is secondary.

What if someone paid their way to the park for them? What if they had insurance a week before, lost it for some reason, haven't been able to get on the Florida program yet, and can't afford COBRA long term? What if they were using an unused ticket from a year ago when they had insurance and a job?

It's just way too unrealistic a statement, bordering on elitism.

 

[jakeman]

Kevin and Jake, my 3 points were

1) Having health insurance for your family is more important than expensive vactions.

2) Having health insurance is not as easy as some posters are making it sound.

3) I don't think it's fair to say that people who don't have health insurance should not be at a Disney Park.

Aside from the Florida thingey, which of these points do you disagree with and why?

1) Agreed. Having health insurance is more important than any vacations.

2) Agreed also, but it is obtainable for children for those who put forth the effort. Nothing is as easy as it seems. Easy and responsible are not usually synonymous.

3) I disagree. We aren't talking about an adult or a group of adults who have made the choice to go to Disney instead of investing in healthcare. We are talking about a parent making irresponsible financial decisions that had serious implications (or potential implications) on the health of her child.

 

[MousDad]

3) I disagree. We aren't talking about an adult or a group of adults who have made the choice to go to Disney instead of investing in healthcare. We are talking about a parent making irresponsible financial decisions that had serious implications (or potential implications) on the health of her child.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. BTW-I mean you nor any other poster ill will.

I'm so darn curious now though. I might have to do a random survey of guests on my next trip to see how many have health insurance. Would that be weird? :lookaroun

 

[fosse76]

3) I disagree. We aren't talking about an adult or a group of adults who have made the choice to go to Disney instead of investing in healthcare. We are talking about a parent making irresponsible financial decisions that had serious implications (or potential implications) on the health of her child.

You are making the issue black and white, which is generally unfair to a person's circumstances. Not everyone has access to healthcare. Non-employer related healthcare programs have a lot of qualifications to them, so you can't simply call the parents irresponsible. She may make too much money to qualify for the state healthcare program but not enough to afford a private insurer. They may have been enrolled with an insurer that turned out to be a scam. The children may have some minor pre-existing condition that disqualifies them from coverage. Who knows. There are a myriad of reasons people don't have healthcare. You don't have any right to judge any of their financial decisions if you don't know why they don't have it. I get irritated with people who think that people who aren't in the same boat they are in are lazy or irresponsible. Through my insurance at work, I pay $80/month. That's $960/year. For ME ALONE. And that is not what its actual cost is. My employers pays 70% of its value! Insurance isn't cheap. It's cheaper to take a family of four to TL or the day than it is to pay for the year for ONE person. As I said, unless you know their EXACT financial situation, you have no right to judge why they don't have insurance.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

It wouldn't be free...you'd be paying for it with your tax dollars...and you'd also be paying for other folks who don't have insurance now...the same ones who most likely don't pay much in taxes now either...

No thanks...

Its 11% of earnings in the UK, 12% if you fall in the higher tax payers bracket. But paying for it aside, its especially nice that we can care for new comers to the country and those who make a career out of claiming benefits who have never contributed, while rationing care provision to the elderly who contributed since the National Insurance programme originated. Lets face it theyre old and will die soon anyway.

Oh and travel insurance is around $160 for a family of 4 going to the US for up to 28 days.

 

[jakeman]

You are making the issue black and white, which is generally unfair to a person's circumstances. Not everyone has access to healthcare. Non-employer related healthcare programs have a lot of qualifications to them, so you can't simply call the parents irresponsible. She may make too much money to qualify for the state healthcare program but not enough to afford a private insurer. They may have been enrolled with an insurer that turned out to be a scam. The children may have some minor pre-existing condition that disqualifies them from coverage. Who knows. There are a myriad of reasons people don't have healthcare. You don't have any right to judge any of their financial decisions if you don't know why they don't have it. I get irritated with people who think that people who aren't in the same boat they are in are lazy or irresponsible. Through my insurance at work, I pay $80/month. That's $960/year. For ME ALONE. And that is not what its actual cost is. My employers pays 70% of its value! Insurance isn't cheap. It's cheaper to take a family of four to TL or the day than it is to pay for the year for ONE person. As I said, unless you know their EXACT financial situation, you have no right to judge why they don't have insurance.

First off to MousDad, no ill will taken. I enjoy a good conversation!:wave:

Secondly, a water park is a luxury. If your family is lacking in a basic need then all funds should be used to rectify this situation. Whether it be purchasing the need outright or applying it to a longer term investment that will benefit the family (education, clothes for interviews).

It really is a black and white situation, from the facts that we have. Health insurance > Water park, both in cost and importance. Money should be spent on what is most important first, not luxuries.