Harry Reid too scared of result to bring Obamacare repeal to a vote.

[Guest]

Harry Reid says he won't bring the House Repeal of Obamacare to a vote because it would be a wasted exercise, and it couldn't pass.


House Majority leader Eric Cantor wants Harry Reid to put up or shut up. If he's so confident, then he should bring it up for a vote and embarrass the Republicans by extolling the great benefits of Obamacare and holding a vote where the repeal of the bill would be widely opposed; thereby cementing their view of the Republicans as radical and unrepresentative.

The truth is that Reid really doesn't believe his own spin, and fears that he'll lose control of the Senate with enough Democrats responding to the true will of the electorate, (and fearful for their jobs), and voting with the Republicans to repeal Obamacare.

The President does not want this bill on his desk.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/19/cantor-to-reid-if-youre-so-confident-obamacare-repeal-will-fail-in-senate/

[Guest]

First there is no true will of the electorate. Americans are split pretty much down the middle on this. And it is a waste of time. It will not get the votes. Its time to move on to the business of government. The republicans in the House fulfilled a campaign promise and did their thing. Now lets stop wasting time. I do find it interesting that the repubs have introduced 5 bills to repeal the Estate tax permanently.That's it. Yippee lets take care of that 0.2% of the population again.

[Guest]

because some feel it is a waste of time? If it is supposed to be voted on then let's get on with it and vote.
If it does not pass then everybody can say I told you so. And if it doesn't.......!!

When and where do we stop making everything that doesn't suit elective?
The thinking that is what is wrong with this country.

Stand and be counted.....a seemingly waning process!

btk

[Guest]

The Dems in the House passed 300 bills that never got anywhere in the Senate because of a record number of repub filabusters. Now all of a sudden 1 meaningless bill gets bottled up and it's a national emergency.Only on Fox will it be seen that way.

[Guest]

Here is what really worries me . I watched the House yesterday discuss the Healthcare bill. I did say discuss because there was no debate. We do a far better job on this site debating the issues than the reps do and I am talking both sides. It is ridiculous how our leaders act. There was absolutely NO DEBATE on the bill. Both sides presented nothing but a bunch of quick,poorly written 1 minute soundbites. Ther was no probing,no exchange of views or ideas. The current bill is not perfect but there are some good points to it. Why can't our leaders go over it piece by piece amend it,eliminate parts of it,improve some parts and act like leaders instead of if I don't gat all of what I want I'll act like a spoiled brat. The entire process yesterday made me sick. Our government is broken. Period.

[Guest]

All they are trying to do is roll back the massive failures of this far left President and Congress. That’s what the people voted for in Nov and that’s exactly what they expect to see happen. Quoting skewed polls won’t change a thing. Obamacare was a fraud from the start and the American people know it.

You doubt me? Let’s watch again in 2012 and see what happens.

Let’s not forget that the massive victories in Nov weren't only in congress. From Governorships all the way down to the state and local legislatures, Democrats took a pounding and we all know why.

Everything from the left since then is just spin, made up facts, brutal personal attacks and partisan damage control. The left and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media are kicking into high gear and I suspect we haven’t seen anything yet.

Of course they don't want a repeal vote in the Senate. That's why they say it's a waste of time and the American people are evenly divided anyway.

DON'T BELIEVE IT.

[Guest]

Wow,really?

[Guest]

Yes, really.

[Guest]

After the Democrats worked so hard to get the Obamacare bill passed, why would they run any risk whatsoever that the repeal bill would actually pass? Under the current rules of both the House and Senate, I think I'd say the same thing even if the positions were reversed between the Democrats and Republicans.

At one point I looked up how many bills passed by the House never see the light of day in either conference committee or in an up-or-down vote in the Senate. My recollection is that it's an amazingly high percentage, about 40% of all bills passed by the House, as I recall.

On one hand, I sometimes think I'd like to see up-or-down votes in either the House or Senate on everything--with very limited debate, of course, otherwise nothing would ever get done. But I think the framers of the Constitution did have some "slow down" in mind in authorities granted the Senate. It's just that it seems the over the years the Senate has expanded their rules to the point that a majority doesn't mean the same thing as we think it does. As an example, when did "majority" begin to mean 60 votes out of 100 instead of 51?

I guess I'd have to give it a lot more study to determine in my own mind whether all those arcane Senate rules are good or bad. They're maddening at times for sure. For those favoring repeal of Obamacare, this is one of those times when the Senate rules are maddening. But the rules are the rules, and the politicians will definitely use them to their own advantage.

[Guest]

The only time the Dems talk about changing the rules of filibuster is when they don't have the 60 votes to stop it.

Wouldn't the Dems need the 60 votes to stop a filibuster that was enacted to stop a bill eliminating the filibuster?

I'm just saying.

[Guest]

Maybe some republicans favor changing the rules also. Just saying.

[Guest]

Maybe some republicans favor changing the rules also. Just saying.

Yeah...........okay.:rolleyes:

[Guest]

Why would any Senator from either party not favor changing filibuster rules? According to all that I read the Republicans are going to gain control of everything in 2012 so they should favor a change in the rules. While there at it how about changing back to majority voting. 51 votes and the rest is history and stop all the other garbage. Lets get our government governing!!!

[Guest]

Lets get our government governing!!!

Therein lies our main problem, too much governing and too many willing to be governed.

There's your difference VK.

[Guest]

I, for one, would would like to see ONE change in filibustering. That is, you actually HAVE to filibuster - you can't just THREATEN to do it. Let the rest of your body cash the check that your mouth writes!

[Guest]

Who was it who said, "Elections have consequences."?
Oh yes, Obi-Wan Obama.

[Guest]

Until we can start talking the same language, referring to the same facts, we're never going to solve the problem. for my next exhibit, I'd like to present Michele Bachman's words in response to the State of the Union:


Unless we fully repeal Obamacare, the nation that currently enjoys the finest health care in the world might rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come,


Finest health care? Maybe if you have a spot at the concession stand. Let's look at the facts.

The CIA Fact Book says our life expectancy of 78.11 years is 50th, where Macau is #1 at over 84 years, Japan is #3 at 82, Australia and Canada are #7 & 8 at over 81 years. Countries like Greece (26th @ 79.6 years) and Bosnia (43rd @ 78.5) are ahead of us!

That's not "#1 performance" to me.

We have 10.3% of our population suffering from diabetes. Examples for comparison, Germany is 8.9%, Bosnia 7%, France 6.7%.

We have 2.43 physicians per 1,000 population as of 2007 ranking 23rd out of 30 listed countries. Worst was Turkey at 1.51. Others were the UK just in front of us with 2.48*. France is 14th at 3.37.

* - how come we're spending nearly twice what the UK spends per capita but they have slightly more doctors, per capita?

The WHO rates healt care systems:

1) France. 37) United States (between Costa Rica and Slovenia)

Infant mortality? The CIA Fact Book says Sweden is best with 2.74 deaths per 1,000 live births. France is at 3.31 and the U.S is 46th best at 6.14. *CUBA* is at 5.72!

Is THAT "#1 performance"?

The University of South Carolina did a study in 2000 that had us spending $4500 per person on health care. Switzerland was second at $3300 yet our life expectancy was over 3.5 years less than the Swiss!

Is THAT "#1 performance"?

The Commonwealth Fund (a private foundation that focuses on health care) said last year "America scored poorly in most of the five key areas of health service in comparison to the other six competitorsdespite the country's healthcare system being the most expensive in the world." ["the competitors" were Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom]

Saying "We're #1" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!

ANYONE who claims we are 'in danger' of 'losing' our '#1 status' IS PROCEEDING FROM A LIE.

[Guest]

Let me know who travels to Slovenia to have their life threatening disease treated by state of the art technology and physicians.

Last time I checked they come here.

[Guest]

Let me know what percentage of the population here can afford it.

I'll bet you that there are FAR more people driving to Canada for medications than there are people coming here from foreign countries.

And by "happening to be" in Montreal when I got sick several years ago, I would have had to have paid $550 for my stay if I were uninsured. If I had been at home in NH and uninsured, that would have cost me over four times that amount FOR THE SAME CARE.

[Guest]

Ok, you changed my mind.

Everyone who can't afford healthcare should get it.
Everyone who can't afford a house should get one.
Everyone who can't afford a car should get one. If you can't afford the gas you get some of that too along with free insurance.
Everyone who can't afford dental care should get it.
Everyone who can't afford to eat well should get more food.
Everyone who can't afford their electric bill should get electricity.
Everyone who needs a phone should get one.

All pretty basic needs to survive life in the evil USA.

All we need to do is tax everyone more and Obama can start handing out the goodies.

[Guest]

dk: If your measure of the 'primacy' of American health care is by how many people travel here for care then I have something that will probably cause you some cognitive dissonance - I know it surprised me.


A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care; the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006)


Think about that. A one-year increase of FIFTY PERCENT in Americans going abroad for health care.

Think about the fact that TEN TIMES as many Americans go outside the country for health care as do those foreigners coming here.

Until we acknowledge THE TRUTH - that we are NOT the 'best in the world', we will not be able to so much as TALK to people who (I'm sorry to say it) *erroneously* have the idea that we ARE the 'best'.

People, by and large, are afraid of change - that's NORMAL. But sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the facts that are continuing to mount means it'll be that much MORE time before we can come up with solutions!

What made me think of this was when I remembered a conversation I had with someone in London last year. HE was complaining about the foreigners coming to ENGLAND to take advantage of THEIR NHS (National Health System).

[Guest]

Until we can start talking the same language, referring to the same facts, we're never going to solve the problem. for my next exhibit, I'd like to present Michele Bachman's words in response to the State of the Union:



Finest health care? Maybe if you have a spot at the concession stand. Let's look at the facts.

The CIA Fact Book says our life expectancy of 78.11 years is 50th, where Macau is #1 at over 84 years, Japan is #3 at 82, Australia and Canada are #7 & 8 at over 81 years. Countries like Greece (26th @ 79.6 years) and Bosnia (43rd @ 78.5) are ahead of us!

That's not "#1 performance" to me.

We have 10.3% of our population suffering from diabetes. Examples for comparison, Germany is 8.9%, Bosnia 7%, France 6.7%.

We have 2.43 physicians per 1,000 population as of 2007 ranking 23rd out of 30 listed countries. Worst was Turkey at 1.51. Others were the UK just in front of us with 2.48*. France is 14th at 3.37.

* - how come we're spending nearly twice what the UK spends per capita but they have slightly more doctors, per capita?

The WHO rates healt care systems:

1) France. 37) United States (between Costa Rica and Slovenia)

Infant mortality? The CIA Fact Book says Sweden is best with 2.74 deaths per 1,000 live births. France is at 3.31 and the U.S is 46th best at 6.14. *CUBA* is at 5.72!

Is THAT "#1 performance"?

The University of South Carolina did a study in 2000 that had us spending $4500 per person on health care. Switzerland was second at $3300 yet our life expectancy was over 3.5 years less than the Swiss!

Is THAT "#1 performance"?

The Commonwealth Fund (a private foundation that focuses on health care) said last year "America scored poorly in most of the five key areas of health service in comparison to the other six competitorsdespite the country's healthcare system being the most expensive in the world." ["the competitors" were Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom]

Saying "We're #1" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!

ANYONE who claims we are 'in danger' of 'losing' our '#1 status' IS PROCEEDING FROM A LIE.

FYI, drugs are cheaper everywhere but the United States. R&D costs are paid by US customers not by those who receive their benefits in other countries.

Nobody is refused health care in the US, now. It's the law.

Trogg

[Guest]

FYI, drugs are cheaper everywhere but the United States. R&D costs are paid by US customers not by those who receive their benefits in other countries.

Nobody is refused health care in the US, now. It's the law.


Yes - we pay the world's prescription drug R&D costs.

But people ARE refused care. Go ahead - try to get chemo and radiation therapy for leukemia without health insurance (like after your insurance company kicked you off).

If nobody is refused health care, why did we just have to pass a bill to cover the 9/11 responders?

Are you aware of what "dumping" is? That's when a hospital "transfers" an indigent somewhere else without treating them. I learned about that in the 1980s when other hspitals used to dump some of their patients to the hospital where I worked (Boston's Beth Israel).

[Guest]

And you really think the government will make it better?

I have a bridge for sale, any takers?

[Guest]

I think it was a noble idea but there are too many parts to this law that are bad and there are other parts that I don't think anyone understands.There are also some good parts to this law.
I do think that all Americans want good AFFORDABLE health care and I do not understand why it costs so much in the USA and why the prices continue to go up.I do know one thing:the price for certain drugs is criminal and should be investigated. Oh,wait a minute....I forgot how much the big pharms give to our Reps and Senators and the insurance companies and on and on. People we are wasting our time and energy...just follow the money

[Guest]

I think it was a noble idea but there are too many parts to this law that are bad and there are other parts that I don't think anyone understands.There are also some good parts to this law.
I do think that all Americans want good AFFORDABLE health care and I do not understand why it costs so much in the USA and why the prices continue to go up.I do know one thing:the price for certain drugs is criminal and should be investigated. Oh,wait a minute....I forgot how much the big pharms give to our Reps and Senators and the insurance companies and on and on. People we are wasting our time and energy...just follow the money


This bill was a POLITICAL response to the problem of high health care costs. Lost in the goal of making political gain was the original idea to lower cost, which this bill does not address in anyway.

You should really read this link from this weeks news...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561249/201101272010/The-False-Advertising-Of-ObamaCare.aspx

I see no political slant to this at all....a few little tidbits...

"The Democrats said that under their plan, health care costs would go down and those who wanted to keep their insurance would be able to. A government official, though, says neither is true.

Appearing Wednesday at a House Budget Committee hearing, Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster said ObamaCare will not hold down health care costs, as President Obama and the Democrats promised it would."

AND THIS...

"Foster's office has projected, as well, that what the Democrats are calling reform "would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 14 million."

[Guest]

I dont think any of it matters. Both sides are getting lots of money to vote a specific way. Our politicians are all bought and sold period. MSNBC,FOX its all a scam. Money runs the country. Again follow the money,thats how the votes will go.

[Guest]

The Health Care "bill" is now LAW. There is no reason to bring it to the Congress for seeing if there are votes to repeal the law.

A couple of teabag party controlled states have decided the law is unconstitutional because it requires people to buy health insurance. Until the LAWis overturned by the US Supreme Court, it remains law. No reason at all for Congress to waste time on discussing it.

I have not seen anyone voluntarily turning in their Medicare benefits or their Social Security benefits because they were "forced" to pay into those systems.

Just sit back, take a deep breath, be glad it is 70 degrees in The Villages, and relax. Go out and play a round of golf (it is free on the executive courses), have a half price drink at Happy Hour at one of the clubs (I invited Bucco to join me but have not had a reply), and wait for the US Supreme Court decision. Life is too short for constant complaining.

[Guest]

A couple of teabag party controlled states

Tisk tisk, why such hate speech?

No reason at all for Congress to waste time on discussing it.

Actually there is. Remember the election in Nov?

[Guest]

The Health Care "bill" is now LAW. There is no reason to bring it to the Congress for seeing if there are votes to repeal the law.

Just sit back, and wait for the US Supreme Court decision. Life is too short for constant complaining.


FYI: The Supreme Court does not MAKE LAW. The Congress makes law. The same Congress that makes a law can REPEAL IT. This is within the purview of the Congress' authority.

If Congress does indeed succeed in repealing this law, the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is moot.

[Guest]

FYI: The Supreme Court does not MAKE LAW. The Congress makes law. The same Congress that makes a law can REPEAL IT. This is within the purview of the Congress' authority.

If Congress does indeed succeed in repealing this law, the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is moot.

Forget something that is already Law. Where's the JOBS?

[Guest]

Forget something that is already Law. Where's the JOBS?

You mean the jobs that are being stifled and eliminated in anticipation of Obamacare?

[Guest]

You mean the jobs that are being stifled and eliminated in anticipation of Obamacare?

No, the Jobs the Republicans are going to create??

[Guest]

Here's a secret. The government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Republications understand this. Democrats don't. What the government does is kill jobs through regulation and taxation.

[Guest]

We are in The Villages, Florida. In my viewpoint, we should be more interested in what concerns us in our state - like Rick Scott:jester:.

I have seen some comments that the new Health Care Law does not do enough to address Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. What do you Republicans, conservatives, and tea party people say about Rick Scott's Columbia/HCA that paid a record $1.4 Billion in fines for Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse? How do you explain the CEO of the firm had no knowledge of the on-going Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse?

[Guest]

dk: I believe there are ways that government can contribute to making it better. For starters, outlawing the practices that msot Americans find repugnant. For another, reforming that part of our legal system that contributes to higher medical costs.

Later on, to be honest, is where I have a problem. Idealistically, I believe in the capitalist system. However, the equation of "maximize shareholder returns" doesn't morally sit well with me when the product is the care and handling of sick people.

It appears that we're stuck with two choices. One is the chilling prospect of a true government takeover of health care - like the UK and Canada have. The other is a huge giveaway to the very insurance companies that contributed to the mess we're in now!

I'm *inclined* to believe, at the moment, that what we need is a combination of both. It's just that I have very little confidence in our government's ability to hold up it's end of a public/private partnership.

[Guest]

The key I think is always free market competition. It's not always perfect but it works. That's something the government stifles.

There are many things we can do to lower the cost of healthcare. Again far from perfect but I don't look at health insurance companies as evil.

The main goal of this bill is to drive private insurance out of business and force people into a single payer government system. That's always been the end goal.

The true evil are governments. Even the founders knew this and thus the Constitution to limit their powers and plenty of warnings in many of their writings.

It's interesting how many people will call big business, insurance companies, etc evil and then give the government a free pass when governments are the true biggest robber barons of all time.

Look at all the hunger in the world. It's not because we don't have enough food.

[Guest]

Here's a secret. The government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Republications understand this. Democrats don't. What the government does is kill jobs through regulation and taxation.

Exactly right!! To create jobs the government has to get out of the way. It can do that by drastic reform and scaling back of business regulation, deep cut of business taxes, and cuts in, and maybe even a temporary elimination of capital gains taxes.

This would create an immediate flurry of activity in the private sector and the result would be jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

The private sector doesn't need bailouts, it needs relief.

[Guest]

Unless you're saying that the 'Obamacare' bill was *specifically* designed to fail in order to cause the public to demand a government takeover, I disagree with you. The idea that you can influence public opinion that far in advance is ludicrous. I mean, look at the mid-term elections. Who saw that coming in 2008?

A big part of the problem with our health care system is the division between provider and payment. Your doctor is thinking "patient first". The entity who pays him the lion's share of his money is thinking "shareholder first".

Of course when government TRIES to correct some of these things, we naturally get the Law of Unintended Consequences. Pass a law so that an insurance company can't say they're kicking you out for getting sick? Fine - the insurance company now drops you with no explanation. To THEM, the law meant you just couldn't SAY why you were doing it. The whole IDEA of insurance is spreading the risk around.

But I'd also like to give another example of why we're in a health care mess:

http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/dennis-kucinich-settles-over-dangerous-olive-pit-sandwich-1672702.story

This is the 'clarification' of the famous Dennis Kucinich $150K lawsuit-over-an-olive-pit. He goes on to explain how this was really a SERIES of events, multiple surguries, etc. But I want to bring your attention to one particular line in his explanation - HIS OWN WORDS about what happened when his tooth first broke:


The internal structure of the tooth was rendered nonrestorable. Although the pain was excruciating, I shook it off and I went right back to work.


Instead of taking care of his problem and getting checked out immediately, he just went back to work. In the end:


This injury required nearly two years, three dental surgeries, and a substantial amount of money to rectify.
...
The injured tooth and the bone above it became infected. I took a course of antibiotics for the infection, had an adverse reaction to the antibiotics which caused me to have an intestinal obstruction and emergency medical intervention.
...
My bridgework had to be completely reconfigured, a new partial was designed, so this injury did not affect only one tooth, but rather involved six (6) replacement teeth as well


All because he didn't seek proper, timely care.

It would appear to me that this is quite similar to the "using the ER as a doctor's office" problem that we hear so much about.

[Guest]

Unless you're saying that the 'Obamacare' bill was *specifically* designed to fail in order to cause the public to demand a government takeover, I disagree with you.

I'm saying that Obamacare was specifically designed to drive private insurance out of business so we would have no choice but to have a government single payer system. That's always been their goal. Obama even said that years ago.


I mean, look at the mid-term elections. Who saw that coming in 2008?

Me.

[Guest]

dk: Explain to me how mandating that we HIRE these private insurance companies (the 'mandate') is putting them out of business? It's *welfare* for them!

Yes, Obama *did* say he wanted the public option but that was long before that got thrown out. THIS law isn't going to get that done. Not even close. But I agree with you that it's NOT going to solve our health care problems. At least not as I see them. It doesn't solve access problems, costs, excessive profit motives, legal problems, etc.

[Guest]

If you look at the actual profit margins for insurance companies you'll find it's not really that much. One of many examples would be pre-existing conditions.

You have no insurance. You get cancer. The insurance company has to insure you and cover all or most of the cost. That's not how insurance works.

How long would car insurance last if you could buy it after the crash and make them foot the bill for the repair?

Add that fact that many large employers will drop coverage and force people onto the government plans. It's cheaper for them in the long haul. Hell, they've already been handing out wavers to large corporations to keep them from doing that very thing... until after the 2012 elections of course.

If you go back and listen to everything Obama said you'll know that this is only the first step to a single payer system. He said back then the American people would never go for it out of the gate. It's called incrementalism. That's how liberals implement their left agenda.

The folks never go for their policies as stated so they slip them in a little at a time over the years.

The concept is simple. The government NEVER fixes anything, they only make it worse.

[Guest]

dk: I see what you're saying but there is one part of your logic that is a bit flawed.

When you said "you have no insurance, you get cancer...". Well, that would be true if the *mandate* didn't exist. As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the mandate says everyone has to have coverage. Now, surely a small percentage of those people will have cancer but most won't. In addition, the uninsured are disproportionatly young people who don't have access to employer-paid plans or have elected no coverage (usually for economic reasons when the employee-paid portion is substantial).

Part of the rationalization for this (right, wrong or indifferent) is to get EVERYONE into the risk pool.

[Guest]

Well, it came to a vote.

Republicans failed.

[Guest]

Actually we're narrowing it down to who needs to go in 2012. And we'll keep doing it right up to voting time when we clean out the rest of them. Obamacare will never survive. Go ahead bookmark this post and we'll revisit when the job is done.

BTW. Obamacare for the moment is legally dead anyway. The Democrats have failed.

[Guest]

Lassen,
You are wrong. The US Supreme Court is the decider on the constitutionality and not a lower court. Please re-read your Civics from high school.

'Nuff said. Talk to the hand.

[Guest]

Lassen,
You are wrong. The US Supreme Court is the decider on the constitutionality and not a lower court. Please re-read your Civics from high school.

'Nuff said. Talk to the hand.

Love how T is alway spouting incorrect, bogus and misleading info and then insults everyone and leaves. Like I've always said "What a Maroon!!"

[Guest]

Lassen,
You are wrong. The US Supreme Court is the decider on the constitutionality and not a lower court. Please re-read your Civics from high school.

:a20:

[Guest]

Richie and Lassen -

Instead of "talking to the hand", just talk to half of the peace sign.

[Guest]

Richie and Lassen -

Instead of "talking to the hand", just talk to half of the peace sign.

Tbugs you have to about the most ignorant person on this board in a long time. I have let may of you snide remarks pass, but I think you should learn to keep them to yourself. This is not the first time you have degraded other posters but I can no longer keep silent.

I'm sorry, but enough is enough.

[Guest]

So earlier I posted statistics on the new "medical travel" industry that shows more than ten times the number of people going overseas for medical treatment than those overseas coming here.

Now it's the "everyone has health care" and "nobody gets turned away" myth.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsstatenewengland/908919-227/nh-uninsured-less-welcome-in-mass-hospitals.html

I grant you they say PART of the reason this person was turned down was because MA requires health insurance and this NH resident didn't have any. But read the rest of the article. It shows you that a hospital CAN and WILL deny services that THEY deem non-emergency. The guy had a broken jaw and was sent to Lowell MA for surgery.