Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Mertex]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

 

[Mertex]

It is sick and stupid to let a grown woman die to save a fetus, yet you are one who would cheer if your party was able to do away with abortion altogether. And, you are talking about taking away the rights of women to make their own decisions, but then, you are a conservative that votes against their own interests.

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

Yes, there is a massive difference......first of all, the fetus is not a person, the mother is and to force her to carry the baby to term even if it kills her is using government to control people's choices, something that you all claim you don't want. The problem is that you only want government to step in when it suit your beliefs and wants.

Is that what makes you sleep better at night, thinking the 60million dead babies were not real? If they weren't people what were they, aliens?

Don't cry to me about 60 million babies which may have just been a clump of cells at the time of the abortion when you and your party dismisses the thousands of babies that are already on this planet and are dying of hunger and lack of health care. You want to repeal Obamacare and deny the millions who are now able to have real healthcare regardless of whether they live or die. Your party also labels everyone on welfare as lazy and would gladly remove food from millions of babies that depend on food stamps for their meals.

You misunderstand, yes I am for liberty. But my liberty ends the moment it takes the life of another human. Liberty is not the liberty to kill people.

How does denying a pregnant woman who has been told her pregnancy will most likely end her life, the choice of an abortion, not the same as saying you don't care if she lives or dies?
That is the liberty you want, to be able to save a fetus at the expense of the mother's life? Why is a fetus more important to you than the mother?

Why are you making up BULLSHIT LIES like saying I want to kill mothers by forcing them to carry to term? Are you mentally unstable?

You may not think you are but you really are. Laws are already in place that restrict abortions. Conservative leaders are proposing laws that will take it further. Some have suggested that "rape" is what God intended in order to bring a life into the world, what kind of bullshit is that? Another claims that not all rape is rape, and some, would take it further to where there is no abortion at all, even in the case of a mother's life at risk.

To my knowledge NOT ONE HUMAN ON THE PLANET OTHER THAN LIBTARDS ARE PROPOSING ANYONE WANTS TO KILL MOTHERS.

When you propose taking abortion completely off the table you are doing just that. There are many cases where women are incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term without the risk to their life. If abortion is not legal, they could die. And capitalizing the whole statement doesn't make it true....pay attention.

To clarify for you when one of two lives are at stake, then a decision or arbitration must be made. Saying liberty is not the liberty to kill someone does not mean you have to kill someone to save another person's life. Your example is ridiculous. Self defense is not the same as murder.

It looks to me that you are not paying attention to what the leaders of your party are proposing. Right now, that is the way it is, a mother who is at risk has the option of choosing whether or not to take the risk or have an abortion. With your leaders propositions, abortion would not even be an option. So, do some research, instead of just blurting out like other ignoramuses, that Liberals are killing babies just for the sake of killing.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all rape is forcible rape.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not all rape is forcible rape.

Statutory rape is still rape since no consent can be granted by minors.

Furthermore any pregnancy as a result of rape is unwanted since the females who have been raped had no intention of becoming pregnant. They should have access to an abortion if they want one including if they are minors under the circumstances of statutory rape.

 

[Katzndogz]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

 

[depotoo]

Abortion Distortions 2014

 

[Derideo_Te]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

 

[hadit]

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

Biology makes it clear the developing baby is not part of the mother's body. The placenta prevents the mixing of blood, for example, because the developing baby would be seen as a foreign body by the mother's immune system, which would destroy him/her. To say that he/she is a part of the mother's body is as useful and accurate as saying Christopher Reeve became a part of his respirator.

No one is saying that the zygote/fetus is a growth or tumor on the mother, but to say that it is not part of the mother's body is ridiculous. The zygote/fetus, attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and feeding of her body cannot survive outside of the mother's body for a time.....usually the time that most states approve elective abortions. Your use of semantics to try and prove whatever it is you are trying to prove is inane.


Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother.

Nutrition In The Womb

I can't believe that conservatives don't know this. But then, they think a fertilized egg is a person.

That blood from the woman is what is first giving nourishment to that fertilized egg. There's no umbilical cord. It has not been developed yet. That fertilized egg exists solely on the blood in the lining of the uterus. Which is why the uterus becomes thick and the lining of blood becomes thicker. It also actually diverts blood from the woman to the fertilized egg. All nutrients and food will go to that fertilized egg first then to the woman. If there's not enough for the egg, it will take it from what already exists in the woman. Which is why some women end up losing teeth, hair and other problems from pregnancy.

The fact that they don't know any of this is another reason why I don't believe they have any place in this debate.

One word: placenta. Look it up.

 

[Katzndogz]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

You are disputing their finding that those children died because of a lack of healthcare. Onus is on you to prove that Johns Hopkins study is invalid.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

You are disputing their finding that those children died because of a lack of healthcare. Onus is on you to prove that Johns Hopkins study is invalid.

Assume that the study is valid. Do these statistics indicate how many deaths were due to health care being unaffordable and how many due to a decision not to have health care at all. Perhaps due to religious beliefs. How many deaths are attributed to immigrants who just got here? You don't know because those statistics aren't in the study.

17,000 deaths in 20 years is 850 deaths per year. In a population of 300 million means that more people die from falling down (13,000 + per year ) than lack of health care.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

You are disputing their finding that those children died because of a lack of healthcare. Onus is on you to prove that Johns Hopkins study is invalid.

Assume that the study is valid. Do these statistics indicate how many deaths were due to health care being unaffordable and how many due to a decision not to have health care at all. Perhaps due to religious beliefs. How many deaths are attributed to immigrants who just got here? You don't know because those statistics aren't in the study.

17,000 deaths in 20 years is 850 deaths per year. In a population of 300 million means that more people die from falling down (13,000 + per year ) than lack of health care.

That study pertained to children only. 45,000 people die every year for lack of healthcare.

Spinning just makes you appear desperate.

 

[Dana7360]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

You are disputing their finding that those children died because of a lack of healthcare. Onus is on you to prove that Johns Hopkins study is invalid.

You can put all the honest and credible proof right in front of their noses. They will either not acknowledge it or they will say it's a lie.

You waste your time spoon feeding them truths. They will never accept it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lies. There is a MASSIVE difference between killing a baby to save a mother from having to bring the baby to term... and killing the mother by forcing her to carry the baby to term. That is the rough equivalent of saying giving someone a license to drive is murder.

The use of emotive terminology indicates that your point is too weak to stand on it's own...which just happens to be true in this case because no "baby" is being "killed".

What is it they are killing then, an alien from mars? What "species" are these aliens?

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

Ever heard of Cystic Fibrosis? Without affordable healthcare that is a killer for babies. Prior to the ACA parents went into bankruptcy trying to pay the hospitals bills and when the money was gone their babies died.

45,000 people die for lack of healthcare in this nation each and every year and only a fool would assume that none of them are babies and children.

Read and learn!

Mortality and lack of health insurance Science-Based Medicine

The underlying longitudinal studies on which IOM relied did not specify the impact of insurance coverage on mortality by 10-year age groups. Rather, they documented the relationship between insurance and mortality across the sum total of all surveyed age groups. The IOM’s methodology implicitly assumed that insurance reduces mortality by the identical percentage for each 10-year age band, which the underlying research did not show. More grounded in the research would be an application of differential mortality estimates to all adults age 25–64, as was done for those longitudinal studies, rather than separately to each age group within this range. For 2000–06, this alternative approach raises the estimated number of excess deaths by an average of 20.5 percent a year.

There are 13 recent studies on the health effects of health insurance coverage for children, including 5 studies that used quasi-experimental methods (Aizer, 2007; Bermudez and Baker, 2005; Cousineau et al., 2008; Currie et al., 2008; Howell et al., 2008a). These studies suggest that health insurance is beneficial for children in several ways, resulting in more timely diagnosis of serious health conditions, fewer avoidable hospitalizations, better asthma outcomes, and fewer missed school days

Bullshit lies. We have medicaid in this county, you liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Total utter BULLSHIT. So some dumb ass parents don't take their kids to a FREE CLINIC and you blame the lack of HEALTH CARE? WTF is wrong with you libs?
Do you even know what the phrase "might have led or contributed to" means? IT MEANS THEY HAVE NO FRIGGING IDEA WHETHER EVEN ONE KID DIED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF YOUR COMMUNIST MARXIST EFFING UNAFFORDABLE HEALTH SCREW SYSTEM.

YES OR NO We have health care in this country for the poor, and it is called medicaid... AND IT COVERS CHILDREN VIA A SYSTEM CALL CHIPS. Yes or no???????

 

[RKMBrown]

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Onus is on you to refute the reputable studies by Johns Hopkins.

I'm agreeing with Johns Hopkins. I accept the statistic that there are 17,000 deaths over a period of two decades (20 years) in a population of 300 million. Do you understand how minisucle this number really is?

You are disputing their finding that those children died because of a lack of healthcare. Onus is on you to prove that Johns Hopkins study is invalid.

Assume that the study is valid. Do these statistics indicate how many deaths were due to health care being unaffordable and how many due to a decision not to have health care at all. Perhaps due to religious beliefs. How many deaths are attributed to immigrants who just got here? You don't know because those statistics aren't in the study.

17,000 deaths in 20 years is 850 deaths per year. In a population of 300 million means that more people die from falling down (13,000 + per year ) than lack of health care.

To go further it does not say that the PARENTS COULD NOT AFFORD TO BUY IT. Nor does it say that the parents didn't have access to free health care. It is nothing but total bullshit.

 

[Mertex]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Did you consider the math? 17,000 deaths over a period of 20 years in a population of 300 million is infitesimal. Such a microscopic number really cannot be quantified as being solely on lack of medical insurance. Such a tiny number might be better described as due to people who do not believe in medical care and therefore do not have medical insurance.

Oh wow, as long as it's only a few, it doesn't matter. Gotcha.......considering the squawking by conservatives over the handful of Ebola patients.....and how Obama wasn't handling it....maybe you should consider your different standards. And, considering how many people are now able to afford healthcare and have, your last insensitive statement falls flat.

 

[Mertex]

And what do you call the "babies" that were dying due to lack of health care when you were busy trying to kill the chance of the ACA being made a law? Unfortunate?

Liar. SHOW ME ONE BABY THAT WAS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY DUE TO LACK OF HEALTH CARE PRIOR TO ACA. Just one. You libs are ridiculous.

What do you want me to show you.....the corpse? The fact that you are asking for proof just shows that you are still denying it happened which just makes you conservatives the ones that are ridiculous. You deny facts to cling to your unfounded beliefs and your backward notions.

October 29, 2009
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17 000 Childhood Deaths Children s Hospital at Johns Hopkins Baltimore Maryland

Total utter BULLSHIT. So some dumb ass parents don't take their kids to a FREE CLINIC and you blame the lack of HEALTH CARE? WTF is wrong with you libs?
Do you even know what the phrase "might have led or contributed to" means? IT MEANS THEY HAVE NO FRIGGING IDEA WHETHER EVEN ONE KID DIED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF YOUR COMMUNIST MARXIST EFFING UNAFFORDABLE HEALTH SCREW SYSTEM.

YES OR NO We have health care in this country for the poor, and it is called medicaid... AND IT COVERS CHILDREN VIA A SYSTEM CALL CHIPS. Yes or no???????

OMG, you are ignorant to boot. Did you know that Rick Perry, a Republican didn't even expand Medicaid in Texas.....even though the Feds were paying for it and not Texas, and will be the cause of thousands of deaths? No, you don't, because you appear to be as ignorant as the idiot we have for governor. The right-wing Supreme Court allowed states to decide whether or not to expand Medicaid, and the ignorant and insensitive Republicans are choosing not to do so. So, yes, you and others who support these boobs are just as responsible for the deaths of many. Everything that you don't understand you consider bullshit, but the crap you swallow is the real BULLSHIT.

No need for me to try and give you facts, you're mired in the lies that your party has created and there you shall remain.

You could say that the idea for Medicaid began in Texas. In the late 1920s, a middle-school teacher named Lyndon B. Johnson saw the crushing poverty and inequality his Mexican-American students faced in the small South Texas town of Cotulla. Nearly 40 years later, then-President Johnson declared a War on Poverty and, in 1965, signed the bill that created Medicaid—a program funded jointly by the states and the federal government to provide health insurance to low-income Americans. It was part of his vision for a “Great Society,” which he boldly defined as “a society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.”

Johnson probably couldn’t have imagined the program’s impact. In the past 47 years, Medicaid has provided medical care to hundreds of millions of Americans—including low-income children, the elderly, disabled, and pregnant women—and has saved millions of lives. More than 50 million are currently enrolled.

In many areas, the Texas program pays for only the minimum standards required by the federal government. One in four Texans—6.1 million people—lack health insurance, the highest percentage in the country.

Now another Democratic president wants to expand Medicaid, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” Even a modest expansion would mean that an estimated 1.5 million working adults who earn 133 percent of the federal poverty level or less (about $14,856 a year for an individual) could have health insurance starting in 2014.

But there’s one big snag. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that states have the right to refuse to expand Medicaid. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is among several governors, mostly southern and Republican, who are resisting. To make the expansion more palatable, the federal government will pay for all the people added to Medicaid rolls until 2017; after that, it will reimburse 90 percent of the costs. In effect, Americans around the country would help pay for the health insurance of more than a million Texans.

If Texas doesn’t expand Medicaid, it will reject more than $100 billion in federal money the first decade, according to the state’s own figures. To get that sizeable federal reimbursement, the state would have to spend about $16 billion over 10 years. The governor’s refusal to take the federal government’s billions puts him in an awkward position opposite some of the state’s most powerful economic players: hospital chains, local governments and chambers of commerce. Given that political pressure, Perry might strike a deal with the Obama administration, or the Texas Legislature could push for a Medicaid expansion.

Beyond the economics and politics, lives are at stake. Lack of insurance will certainly mean more deaths.
Rick Perry s Refusal to Expand Texas Medicaid Program Could Result In Thousands of Deaths - The Texas Observer

 

[Mertex]

Bullshit lies. We have medicaid in this county, you liar.

You really don't know much, do you. Do you know how poor you have to be to qualify for Medicaid? Middle-class people couldn't afford health insurance before Obamacare, the reason it was created to begin with, and they didn't qualify for Medicaid. You need to do some research so you don't appear so uninformed.

It's really a waste of my time responding to your inane posts.


The number of middle-income earners covered by employer health insurance fell by three million from 2000 to 2008, and government programs and the individual market aren't picking up the slack. The total number of uninsured middle-income earners rose from 10.5 million to 12.9 million, representing 16.2 percent of the income bracket -- a bigger increase than for any other income group.

"It really underscores how the problem of uninsurance is not something simply affecting lower-income Americans but is increasingly affecting the middle class," said Brian Quinn, the foundation's research and evaluation office. The most recent Census Bureau estimate puts the total uninsured population at 46.3 million.


Just 66 percent of people in families earning between $45,000 and $85,000 are insured through an employer plan -- 52.7 million people, down from 55.5 million eight years prior -- a drop of nearly seven percentage points.

Middle Class Losing Health Insurance Faster Than The Rich Or Poor

 

[Newby]

Newby, don't you find it at all morally objectionable to allow such State authority over private individuals?

The logical extension of having legal 'personhood' protections allows a dangerous oppressive State power over women.

as a conservative and as a Christian, i find that sort of State control over individuals as most objectionable...

SCOTUS rulings have repeatedly reinforced this unemotional objective protection of personal privacy in the 1st trimester...

IMO it is THE proper legal AND moral stance on this issue..

the only reason our society continues to have this 'argument' is because of self righteous do-gooders who can't seem to get past emotional appeals long enough to discern the legal nuance involved with the immense danger in protecting every conception as a constitutionally protected 'person'.

being politically 'pro-choice' does not mean someone has 'no empathy' for the the unborn, that is a typical dishonest appeal to emotion.

the pro-life movement towards 'personhood' legislation is not something the OP made up, it has very real and dangerous consequences for American citizens. naturally, most women are very concerned about this misguided political trend...


Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks
Troubling Trend More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks

I suppose I find it more morally objectionable for a society to allow the murder of it's most innocent people. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or use birth control, be RESPONSIBLE. It's not difficult or expensive to not have sex or obtain birth control, any abortion rate that we have in this country should be extremely minimal. Allowing murder to alleviate irresponsibility is not the answer either, and will be looked at as a barbaric practice years into the future, and our generation will be looked down upon because we allowed it. It's being used for birth control, which is abhorrent and unacceptable.

And if you're against state control over individuals then I'm sure you oppose Obamacare and want it abolished because that's exactly what it will lead to, further invasive control given to government.