20 minutes after the Roe v Wade decision was announced.

Slavery existed long before Europe was colonized let alone North America, you retarded jackass.

bthewolf:

Was that directed at me?

Read the damned article before replying, will you? How silly. The baby had a terminal, brain dead vegetative condition. It would have been inhuman to allow it to prolong its suffering, if it were possible for the baby to experience. It probably wasn’t.

The issue was whether to let the baby die in the hospital or go home and die. To go home would have necessitated a tracheostomy, which might actually have prolonged the suffering, but it was essential if the baby was to go home. That was the parent’s desire. It was deemed not in the baby’s best interest on any level. It was proposed entirely to benefit the parents, who did not consider, apparently, what it meant for the baby, an operation then slow death from infection or asphyxiation. Some ass said that if the baby went home it could die in dignity.

Why put this poor baby through another surgical procedure just to assuage the parent’s guilt or inability to let go their attachment to the baby.

The doctors decided that it would be cruel because infections are likely and the baby would suffer more. The parents didn’t care, apparently. The court did care and protected the baby from further suffering.

It’s that simple, whether Sarah Palin likes it or not. And I must say that most of the contrary opinions I have read, likewise show they are only politically interested.

Well….on one hand, doing this would’ve cost the Canadian taxpayers more money. On the other hand, they already seem to know this, and if they cared, they wouldn’t have this system in the first place…

How can it be that it will prolong the baby’s suffering if, as you have pointed out, the baby is brain-dead? You can’t have it both ways. If the baby is incapable of life, it should make no difference to him that he has the surgery. If the baby is capable of suffering, then perhaps it is in his best interest to be surrounded by his family, who love him.

Sarah Palin???? Wow, you really need therapy.

No, you can’t. Canada is one of only a handful of countries that has a single payer health care system, and this is what will happen, no matter what you want. If you want more government control then you by default are giving the government power over whether you live or die. These death panels come with government run health care, no matter what. They are inseparable. Either defend this or defend private health care, hypocrite!

@Joe

I said SINGLE PAYER you ignorant twat! Two tier systems are NOT single payer! Get your head out of your arse!

No one but you has said Nazi, Joe.

And Vega gave some vague and acecdotal examples, but systemic instances like this one. His second cut-and-paste job from from a website dedicated to healthcare reform, not exactly a unbiased source.

Vega knows nothing about insurance or healthcare and you know even less.

So keep defending the treatment this family is receiving. I’m sure you think it will NEVER happen to you.

What position, Vega? I proved my assertions. It is YOU who runs away when proof is requested.

Proof, or STFU!

Piss off, Stan. You lost your priviledge of asking me for anything.

Asking you to provide proof of your idiocy is a PRIVILEDGE?

Once a pompous ass, ALWAYS a pompous ass!

Asking you to provide proof of your idiocy is a PRIVILEDGE? Once a pompous ass, ALWAYS a pompous ass!

For you it is, because you can’t manage to pay the same consideration.

So yeah, go fly a kite.

When asked for proof, I provide it.

No, you don’t. Not when I ask for it.

You’ll just have to deal. Maybe someone else will ask.

Those quotes from you date back to 2009, Vega. And they are not all responses to me, but to others that have asked you to back up your obvious lies.

You’re a liar, Stan. Those quotes are directed at you because you make demands and haven’t the brains or the juevos to back up what you say.

Like I said, go talk a long walk off a short pier.

Nice try Vega, but responses A, D, And E were said to me. B was said to wolf and C was said to Trench.

Like I said, you have a history of this, as well as a history of running away when you can no longer back up your stupidity. When you promise to provide proof you don’t and run away. And when you do post proof, like you did yesterday with your statement about women obeying men in the New Testement; you post somethign that does not prove what you originally claimed but insist it does.

You are a child and a pompous ass, Vega. Everyone knows it.

Okay. What facts do you have to back up what you said?

When individuals lose their health coverage just when they need it the most, care is being rationed. In the vast majority of states it is possible for insurance companies to cancel individual market coverage once it is found that expensive claims are being made on the policy. Such claims often trigger post-claims underwriting, insurance jargon for insurers investigating a policyholder’s already-completed application and medical history to find evidence of preexisting conditions. Even if errors or omissions on an application were unintentional, in many states they can be grounds to cancel coverage going forward, rescind or retroactively cancel coverage, or limit coverage to exclude the preexisting condition.

All three of these steps ration care for those who need medical attention. Rescissions go further by sticking former policyholders with the bill for services they sought believing they had coverage. At a recent congressional hearing, it was revealed that just three insurers rescinded at least 20,000 individuals between 2003 and 2007. In one case, a nurse had her coverage rescinded when she developed breast cancer—after failing to disclose that she had seen a dermatologist for acne. When insurance industry executives were asked if they would end the practice of rescissions, the answer was “no.”

Individuals and families also are at risk of losing insurance during life transitions that limit their access to coverage. Losing a job, going through a divorce, or graduating from college can automatically make some individuals or families ineligible for employer-sponsored coverage. While federal law offers some protections for individuals and families who are moving from one job to another, or from group insurance to the individual market, how those protections are enforced varies by state. Families uncertain of their options, or those without the resources to pay often very high premiums, are at risk of becoming uninsured.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/too_sick.html

When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.

A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11 – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.

At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions. Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage.

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

According to a survey by Kaiser Family Foundation, 55% of employer-based insurance plans have Lifetime Maximum Benefit Limits of either $1-2 million or above $2 million. That’s a better than 50-50 chance that your plan does as well. This option is becoming more widely-used as employers look for ways to trim the rising cost of health care without trimming the benefits their employees would miss – their co-pay prices, employee contributions, provider networks, etc. Now $2 million dollars may seem like a lot, particularly if you’re relatively healthy, but Brigette Courtot of the National Woman’s Law Center shows how the sudden onset of a catastrophic trauma or chronic disease can get you close to that maximum limit in no time:

• “Coronary Artery Disease (the leading killer of women in the U.S.): over $1 million

• Multiple Sclerosis (which affects twice as many women as men): $2.2 million

• Single Kidney Transplant: $500,000

• Spinal Cord Injury: between $624,000 and $2.8 million

• HIV Care: $618,000

• Autism: over $300,000″

Sadly, the way most people learn that they have such a limit tends to follow a story I received from a reader of this blog, herself a health care provider:

“In December I received a phone call from my benefit plan informing me that I am nearing my Lifetime Maximum Benefit Limit. I was not aware that my benefits were limited to a million dollars, and once I have used that amount in medication, doctors visits and services, THAT’S IT. I was shocked. I asked, ‘Then what do I do?’ The woman said I could apply for Medicare, but at 40 years old, I am not eligible. I have neuromuscular disease which left me completely disabled for 4 months in 2005, and I was only able to get back to work because of expensive IVIG treatments which cost $16,000 per month. I am only able to function, go to work, and attend to my patients because of my monthly infusions. Now I think I will be covered for about another 6 years, but after that, what do I do?”

http://news.change.org/stories/three-terrifying-words-lifetime-maximum-benefit

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocker_medicare_has_a_higher_claim_denial_rate_than_private_sector_employe/

really???

OK maybe my numbers were off a little…

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=4459

First of all, insurance carriers do drop sick kids, or limit the coverage so in a situation like this, you would still need either extra money or coverage.

Secondly, Medicaid or ChIP does not cover everyone. If both parents works you would not be eligible for Medicaid. You may geyt CHip but again you may not have coverage that this kind of situation requires.

Insurance was never designed to pay 100% for everything. You are required to share the cost. I have never seen an A rated carrier drop any sick person unless they failed to pay their premium or reached the max benefit.

Key words there being “max benefit”. Once your max benefit is reached, and your child is still sick, then what?

In America? You try to get charity. You try to set up a payment plan with the doctor. You apply for government assistance. You appeal to the insurance company.

In socialized medicine, the judge orders that the patient can’t receive any more care and, if the judge lets you, you find a comfy place to die.

Right, because real life is JUST like a movie.

You’re a complete IDIOT, Vega!

In America? You try to get charity. You try to set up a payment plan with the doctor. You apply for government assistance. You appeal to the insurance company.

Have you ever seen the movie “John Q”?

And there’s another right winger below, freeman, who now defends “public (government) assistance.” What an incredible change taking over many on the right. Good for you, the caring you.

I am not defending this.

I am saying that, yes, the benefit for this child would have been exhausted by this point, and the parents would not have been able to get additional coverage.

“I am saying that, yes, the benefit for this child would have been exhausted by this point, and the parents would not have been able to get additional coverage.”

I can say with equal certitude (and a far better chance of being correct) that if they had lived in (or only come to) America, the operation would have been performed and the parents allowed to take their baby home to die as they wished. Your defense of the evils of socialised medicine is noted, however.

Why would they need to afford it if they have insurance? Oh, that’s right, you have to keep telling us that this woudl be even worse if they were here in America.

In this country, if the family didn’t have the money, this child would already be dead.

The child could be dead, or he could be fully recovered; either way, the hospital would do everything possible to keep him alive. They do it every day in every hospital in the country. That’s one reason why our public hospitals, cities, states and country are going broke.

because hospitals don’t refuse critical care to babies regardless of financial status or insurance status.

“The trach will allow the child to return home to die with some dignity.”

Can’t believe anyone said this. The baby was one year old, vegetative, and unconscious. The trach procedure was proposed for the sake of the parents not the baby.

Once again, Joe demonstrates his belief in the proverbial free lunch. Of course there are financial constraints; the dept of health or whatever they call it in Canada has a fixed budget. Nothing is free – not the lights, not the heat, not the paperwork, the medications , not the medical equipment, and not the time, energy and efforts of the healthcare professionals.

There’s this thing called economics that’s all the rage these days. You may want to look into it.

Have an Evil day

Once again, Joe demonstrates his belief in the proverbial free lunch. Of course there are financial constraints; the dept of health or whatever they call it in Canada has a fixed budget. Nothing is free – not the lights, not the heat, not the paperwork, the medications , not the medical equipment, and not the time, energy and efforts of the healthcare professionals.

There’s this thing called economics that’s all the rage these days. You may want to look into it.

Have an Evil day

What? Talk but no data?

This case serves as a good example. A baby is kept in an expensive neonatal unit (likely) for five months of intensive care. Want to find us the costs of similar care in a hospital in the US?

Social medicine systems are paid through taxes.

Oh yes it is fully within the court’s jurisdiction to protect children here and in Canada and probably everywhere else. Get that in your head. It was the court’s decision to make.

If you were to abuse or in some way do ill harm to your children, the state via police and then the courts will be in your hair pronto. Children are not property that parents can dispose of as they see fit. Most states have child protection laws and we would be in some fix if they were not prosecuted.

X you have a lot to learn.

The courts here have determined that a woman can kill her child if that child will inconvenience here or cause her to not fit into her prom dress. So don’t you DARE lecture us about the courts having the best interest of the child at heart.

This court callously disregarded the will of the parents in this decision. And you are just like them for supporting this travesty!

Abortion IS the death of a child, RealPolitik!

Projecting again I see. Since only you have this problem with my capabilities, I’d say you are the idiot savant here.

Do not delude yourself that you speak for anyone, RealPolitik.

Great post, RealPolitik. We can put two of your lies to rest.”Allah be praised.” – So much for your lie about being a follower of Christ.”until the foetus becomes a viable homo sapiens sapiens, it *is* more like a fish.” – So much for you lie about being a thinking human.You are done here, RealPolitik. Run away!

“until the foetus becomes a viable homo sapiens sapiens, it *is* more like a fish”

Ahh. My favorite Liberal stupidity. So tell us exactly how an unborn child actually manages to change species, and exactly when this miraculous event occurs — and more importantly, how it can be determined. I’m just dying to see your explanation for species-switching in the womb.

Allah is not the one true god and Christ has not connection to it.

And you did not claim the fetus looked like a fish, you claimed it was not human. You have even claimed that it is not even alive. And you refuse to answer when it all become a person.

Typical RealPolitik. You lie almost as much as Vega does, and that is a huge accomplishment.

LOL CaveX. Iz you ignorant . . . stupid . . . or being funny?

Hey, I’m a wonderful, generous person – I’ll pretend you are being funny. The salient point (which you ignore because you want to, and deflect from because it destroys your argument) is that they are “INDEPENDENT”.

@CaveX

You keep repeating the same thing (a typical act of deflection) but ignore the more important and salient fact. Doctors and judges work INDEPENDENTLY in Canada – they make their own decisions. Those decisions are not based on the wages they receive.

I am not attempting to change the fact of the source of their payment, nor ignore it, nor hide it. It is not germane to the discussion.

“Doctors and judges work INDEPENDENTLY in Canada ”

Who pays them? Or are you going to try and tell us they work for free?