Results 1 to 3 of 3

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Baby Versus Bucks: Proud2blib Ponders The Healthcare Crisis 
    proud2Blib (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 07:37 PM
    Original message
    A health care pro-life nightmare story for Ann Coulter
    Advertisements [?]So Ann Coulter thinks there is no health care crisis in our country? Has she been in a coma?

    I posted a few weeks ago about our neighbors who are pregnant and found out the baby is most likely not viable. They are now telling them that there is a slight chance the baby will survive if she carries him full term. She is almost 8 months pregnant and her doctors told her she could decide to have an abortion now or carry the baby to term. If he is born alive, he will immediately go into neonatal intensive care at a cost of $10,000 a day. And that is just the cost of the stay, it doesn't include tests or medications or surgeries.

    The insurance company will pay one third.

    The hospital said if the baby survives it will cost at least a million dollars to save him.

    They decided to carry the baby to term and hope for the best.

    So these 28 year old kids will likely need to declare bankruptcy to save their baby.

    Now if that doesn't convince you there is a health care crisis in this country, you don't have a heart.
    renie408 (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 08:21 PM
    Response to Reply #5
    7. Which is more cruel? Assuming that your decisions are the ones everybody should make.
    Believing in the right to choose goes both ways. This young couple has the right to not abort and you have the right TO abort. Both choices should be respected.

    And until you are in that position, I think you should probably not get too judgmental. I have friends who were pretty much assured that their baby would not be able to survive more than a few days after birth. They found this out when they were six months pregnant. They chose, after some of the most painful consideration imaginable, to try and carry the baby to term. They wanted a chance to hold their child and they wanted to give him whatever slim chance they could.

    That's what parents do.
    Tesha (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 06:36 AM
    Response to Reply #10
    16. I've never met an atheist who would bear the child described in .0
    > Atheists can be pro-life, too.

    I think we'll need a citation for this statement, at
    least for the question of how it applies to the situation
    described in the Original Post. I've never met an atheist
    who would bear the child described in .0; that child, if
    born, is going to live a short, hard life full of pain.

    Atheists have more compassion than to force a child to
    bear all that just so the parents might feel a bit better.

    Tesha
    Interesting exchange.

    Link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,115
    Tesha (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 12:57 PM
    Response to Reply #27
    33. Euthanasia exists for a reason: it ends suffering.
    This couple will, instead, foist a huge shipload
    of suffering on their child.

    Tesha
    Right...kill the unborn baby before he/she has to "suffer". So "Tesha" shouldn't mind if she is killed now "before she has to suffer" from illness or infirmity. After all you never know when it might happen. Better to do it before it happens, right? (sarcasm)

    Who is she to determine that this child will "suffer" or that for the parents and the child the "suffering" will be worse than not living at all?

    I've cared for many ill children. This attitude is so wrong. It's what National health care will bring us though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,393
    They decided to carry the baby to term and hope for the best.

    So these 28 year old kids will likely need to declare bankruptcy to save their baby.

    Now if that doesn't convince you there is a health care crisis in this country, you don't have a heart.
    Socialized medicine does not fix everything...

    Infant Mortality Rate Prompts Canada To Send High-Risk Pregnant Women Across The Border

    LINK

    Canada has been struggling the past few years with its infant mortality rate that high-risk pregnant Canadian women are being sent to the U.S. to ensure safe deliveries and newborn survival.

    >>>snip

    Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the SOGC attributed the problem to the closure of hospital beds the past 10 years, lack of a national birthing plan and shortage of medical staff. "Neonatologists are very stretched right now... We're so stretched, it's kind of dangerous," Lalonde told the Globe and Mail in a telephone interview from Ottawa.

    £35,000-a-year kidney cancer drugs too costly for NHS

    LINK

    Four new drugs to treat advanced kidney cancer have been rejected as too expensive for use by the NHS. Although they can extend life by up to six months, they cost too much, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) says. It has concluded that the money would be better spent elsewhere in the NHS, where it would do more good.
    It's bad enough to have to fight an insurance company or HMO...try fighting the government. :mad:
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •