"FORCE THEM to have those babies and then if they can't afford to insure 'em, LET EM DIE!!!"

[FarLeftFist]

Republicans 2011. Oh and not to mention blocking aid for disaster relief. The GOP/Tea Party is like the Third Reich except the Tea Party has weaker uniforms and spelling skills. This is just another couple of examples in a long list (I wish someone would compile) of the bat-shit crazy things they've done/proposed. Sickening!

"FORCE THEM to have those babies and then if they can't afford to insure 'em, LET EM DIE!!!"-Republicans 2011

Edit: Alan Grayson was right all along, the GOP health insurance plan: DIE QUICKLY!

[patrice]

1. because dying quickly/fear REDUCES the price of LABOR. nt

[global1]

2. Now We Know Who The Real Death Panels Are.......nt

[alterfurz]

3. GOP/Tea Party platform: The Right to Life ENDS at Birth!

[KharmaTrain]

4. As George Carlin Said Many Years Ago...

..."it's just a matter in the timing"...

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. Someone said to me yesterday: "I hate to say it because it's overused but..."

"....I've now see what is the new Nazi party." - this was after seeing the Tealiban debate last night.

[Whiskeytide]

6. "...except the Tea Party has weaker uniforms and spelling skills."

:toast: :rofl:

[pansypoo53219]

7. it's funny, the GOP obviously detest the poor, YET

they insist on making more people POOR.

[DirkGently]

8. Grayson provoked outrage because he was right. His comments deserve repeating & expansion.

The party that claimed universal healthcare would mean "government death panels" was really complaining that the private, health insurance company death panels, might be impeded in their work.

It's ironic that rightwing hyperbole attacking liberal ideas is often the quite literal description for their own policies. Death is EXACTLY what they have in mind, for a lot of people.

[HockeyMom]

9. Severely disabled baby WITH insurance

There was a young woman at the non-profit agency where I used to work who gave birth to a severely disabled baby. She knew while pregnant that her baby would have these problems, but she chose to have the baby. Ok, her choice, BUT. The baby's bills after less than a year amounted to close to a million dollars and the child did not improve. Basically, everything was being done just to keep her alive. So the insurance company stopped coverage. Oh, not just coverage for her baby, but the ENTIRE AGENCY. They said this one patient had used up everyone's insurance. Is that right? Besides, when do you say enough is enough? Apparently, because this mother wanted this, and insurance was paying, these doctors just kept trying this and trying that. As my Mom said before she went into the hospital to die, "a science experiment just to see how long somebody can be kept alive." While I felt bad for this woman, I thought she was being very, very selfish. Make that child as comfortable as possible and let god/mother nature take it's course. It was hopeless. Yes, when all this extraordinary treatment was stopped, this baby did pass away. Unfortunately, other children had their insurance cut before of this one baby. BTW, the owner of this agency dropped that insurance company.

This situation was so wrong on so many levels.

[jwirr]

10. Not sure how I feel about this as a mother of a severely disabled

child. I did not have to make this decision because abortion was not legal and there was no way of knowing until she was born anyhow. Nor did we use special means to keep her alive at any time in her life. What we have done is use medical knowledge to make the quality of life better. I do have a do not resuscitate plan for her now though. For that reason I hear what you are saying. If a child is not going to be able to live without life supports the rest of her life I think I would choose what you suggested. However, I would not want to be the one to choose for some other mother.

[HockeyMom]

11. this was at a non-profit agency for the developmentally disabled

The founder of the agency was a former catholic nun. Apart from the insurance being canceled, this woman advised the mother to talk to a priest. Basically what the mother was told was to leave it in god's hands. Give the baby nourishment (IV) and let god decide whether the baby would live or die. Apart from that, this baby was denying care to adults and children who could be treated and helped. That was why the agency head was so furious at the insurance company.

I have worked with the disabled, both children and adults, for over 10 years. I had two of my own special needs children and that is why I went into this field. Once they are born, they are human beings and deserve to be cared for, even at SOCIETY'S expense, if their family members cannot pay themselves. So many of the adults I worked with had long ago been abandoned by their families. Very, very sad, but this is where SOCIETY needs to step in. We just cannot let our sick, disabled, and elderly just die on the streets. While I am not a religious person, I do believe in a higher power/nature who knows more than we humans do. Again, having raised special needs children, and lost two, I can see a "plan" in the outcome of this. My own daughter had/has severe allergies. While I was still nursing her, her sibling embryo died, perhaps so an already born child could live to adulthood.

I went into this field not for money and to make profits for myself or somebody else, but to serve, if you understand what I mean by that. No amount of money can compensate. If you yourself, have a special needs child you will know what I mean. It so burns me up that the most vulnerable in our society are going to be thrown away by America's greed for PROFITS. There should be the money and care for ALL that need it.

[lindysalsagal]

12. You're missing the point: Keep every embryo so that it can grow up and die in an

unjust war. If we keep them hungry and uneducated, with little hope for anything better, we'll have an unending supply of human carnage, and we can put little crosses on the bullets.