It's the potential of life, not yet born. And yes, it's actually a very devastating thing when a miscarriage occurs.


My brother and sister in law had a miscarriage. We were all very saddened and sent or love and prayers.


They are practicing Catholics, and they didn't have a funeral. But it was still sad. But a miscarriage isn't a loss of a baby. A baby isn't a fetus. It was the kids of the potential of what could have been which is the sad part.


If anyone has had a baby, they'd know the difference.


Unfortunately, conservatives have decided to make something that is very personal a political topic.

Lol.


Like I said, master of the bait and switch...


Again, the loss of a potential life is devastating. But it's a personal one. Everyone will handle it in a different way.

---

Can you point out more than a few isolated examples where people are denied medical assistance because they don't have insurance?

Exactly.  I work at a hospital and NO ONE is turned away regardless of ability to pay.   Another fallacy from the left.  

 

Perhaps we should turn his red herring question around.... since life is disposable at will, shouldn't we deny all medical coverage to the infirm?  

---

Lol.


Like I said, master of the bait and switch...


Again, the loss of a potential life is devastating. But it's a personal one. Everyone will handle it in a different way.

 

Oh, isn't that sweet.  You really felt sad for them.  What a hero.

 

You don't have a clue.  You just made my point.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Exactly.  I work at a hospital and NO ONE is turned away regardless of ability to pay.   Another fallacy from the left.  

 

Perhaps we should turn his red herring question around.... since life is disposable at will, shouldn't we deny all medical coverage to the infirm?  

 

I'm sure anchor would be fully behind euthanizing someone who has reached the point where they will cost him more of his free handouts.  He's feeling the Bern.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Hey, lookie here, a rational well thought out position.

I agree that most abortions after 12 weeks should only be done within strict guidelines when the health of the mother is involved or that the baby is found to have a severe issue that the parents feel would greatly reduce the lack of quality of life.


Nobody is pro abortion, the loss of a potential life is a pretty sad situation, but a pregnancy that's with I the first 2 months is not a baby, and a woman or couple should have the right to terminate that pregnancy if they do choose.


Think there are compromises and common ground that can be reached. But reducing the availability to terminate a pregnancy does nothing to help get us to a compromise.

 

Then what the hell are you talking about with the OP? You want restrictions on abortions?

---

Can you point out more than a few isolated examples where people are denied medical assistance because they don't have insurance?

So are you saying it's best to only see a doctor in the emergency room if you are poor or unemployed?


Are you saying that falling into bankruptcy is the desired outcome of a medical calamity if one is poor or unemployed?


Lol, that's a joke right?

---

So are you saying it's best to only see a doctor in the emergency room if you are poor or unemployed?


Are you saying that falling into bankruptcy is the desired outcome of a medical calamity if one is poor or unemployed?


Lol, that's a joke right?

 

So, you can't actually provide actual facts, so try to turn it around, huh? 

 

Bern would be so proud of the good little Marxist you're becoming.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Then what the hell are you talking about with the OP? You want restrictions on abortions?

First of all, I just like to argue. It's enjoyable to me.


Second of all, there's a distinct difference between regulating and restricting abortions and effectively outlawing all access to abortions. You see the difference?


Lastly, why are you giving so much grief when you are audio also willing to meet halfway on this topic?!? What the heck, badger??

---

I'm sure anchor would be fully behind euthanizing someone who has reached the point where they will cost him more of his free handouts. He's feeling the Bern.

Oh, you...


I can't stay made at ya

---

since life is disposable at will, shouldn't we deny all medical coverage to the infirm?  

 

Careful, you'll start a Global Warming discussion that way.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Second of all, there's a distinct difference between regulating and restricting abortions and effectively outlawing all access to abortions. You see the difference?

 

 

Maybe we should only outlaw Assault Abortions.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So, you can't actually provide actual facts, so try to turn it around, huh?


Bern would be so proud of the good little Marxist you're becoming.

Lol, there are several stories of women being denied cancer treatment, a kid dying from an abscessed tooth because his parents couldn't get him antibiotic treatment, etc... all these stories happened prior to Obama care.


But that's besides the point, if you value human life, why would you only want the poor to get medical treatment when they are deathly ill? First, it's fiscally stupid because preventative care is cheaper,


Second, only seeing a doctor during emergencies lowers a person's quality of life--- and remember all life is sacred.

---

Lol, there are several stories of women being denied cancer treatment, a kid dying from an abscessed tooth because his parents couldn't get him antibiotic treatment, etc... all these stories happened prior to Obama care.


But that's besides the point, if you value human life, why would you only want the poor to get medical treatment when they are deathly ill? First, it's fiscally stupid because preventative care is cheaper,


Second, only seeing a doctor during emergencies lowers a person's quality of life--- and remember all life is sacred.

 

Post them here. 

 

BTW, there are MANY clinics around this nation who provide preventative care to the poorest among us, so can you bring up another straw man oppressed group to make your point?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Maybe we should only outlaw Assault Abortions.

Only the ignorant call them assault abortions. They are clearly just hunting abortions.

---

It's the potential of life, not yet born. And yes, it's actually a very devastating thing when a miscarriage occurs.


My brother and sister in law had a miscarriage. We were all very saddened and sent or love and prayers.


They are practicing Catholics, and they didn't have a funeral. But it was still sad. But a miscarriage isn't a loss of a baby. A baby isn't a fetus. It was the kids of the potential of what could have been which is the sad part.


If anyone has had a baby, they'd know the difference.


Unfortunately, conservatives have decided to make something that is very personal a political topic.

 

I'm curious about something.  When your brother and sister-in-law discovered they were pregnant, how did they announce it to the family?

 

"Hey, we're having a potential child!"

 

When the miscarriage occurred, did they tell the family they lost a potential baby?  Or did they say they lost the baby?

 

Did they have a potential baby shower, or did the miscarriage happen too early in the process for them to get that far?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Post them here.


BTW, there are MANY clinics around this nation who provide preventative care to the poorest among us, so can you bring up another straw man oppressed group to make your point?

Bolling Is Wrong: Here Are Just A Few Examples Of Americans Who Were Denied The Care They Needed


Twelve-Year-Old Died In 2007 From Abscessed Tooth After His Family's Medicaid Lapsed. In 2007, as The Washington Post reported:


Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old homeless child, died Sunday in a District hospital after an infection from a molar spread to his brain.


At the time he fell ill, his family's Medicaid coverage had lapsed. Even on the state plan, his mother said, the children lacked regular dental care and she had great difficulty finding a dentist. [The Washington Post, 3/3/07]


Seventeen-Year-Old's Insurance Revoked After He Tests HIV Positive. According to Huffington Post, in 2009:


The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."


[...]


Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.


Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?" The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward. [Huffington Post, 9/17/09]


Woman Denied Coverage For Breast Cancer Because She Wasn't Diagnosed At Correct Clinic. From The Wall Street Journal:


In June 2003, Shirley Loewe went to Good Shepherd Medical Center here with a softball-size lump in her breast and was diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer. She didn't know it, but she had just made a big mistake.


Ms. Loewe was uninsured. Under federal law, she could have gotten Medicaid coverage -- and saved herself a lot of hardship -- if she'd gone to a different clinic less than a half-mile away. But by walking through Good Shepherd's doors, Ms. Loewe unwittingly let that opportunity slip and embarked on a four-year journey through the Byzantine U.S. health-care system.


It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics, two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She was denied assistance or care at least six times along the way, for reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.


Ms. Loewe eventually got treatment, but at personal cost and great aggravation. [The Wall Street Journal, 9/13/07]


Woman's Double Mastectomy Denied Over Disputed Acne Treatment. CNN reported that in 2009:


Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.


Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.


The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.


Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go ahead with the surgery.


[...]


Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage. The company said it had reviewed her medical records and found out that she had misinformed them about some of her medical history.


Beaton had listed her weight incorrectly. She also didn't disclose medication she had taken for a pre-existing heart condition -- medicine she wasn't taking when she originally applied for coverage. [CNN, 6/16/09]


9/11 Responders Without Insurance Face Inferior Coverage For Sustained Injuries. From The New York Times:


The largest health study yet of the thousands of workers who labored at ground zero shows that the impact of the rescue and recovery effort on their health has been more widespread and persistent than previously thought, and is likely to linger far into the future.


The study, released yesterday by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical Center, is expected to erase any lingering doubts about the connection between dust from the trade center and numerous diseases that the workers have reported suffering. It is also expected to increase pressure on the federal government to provide health care for sick workers who do not have health insurance.


[...]


There should no longer be any doubt about the health effects of the World Trade Center disaster," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of Mount Sinai's World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program. "Our patients are sick, and they will need ongoing care for the rest of their lives."


Dr. Herbert called the findings, which will be published tomorrow in Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, "very worrisome," especially because 40 percent of those who went to Mount Sinai for medical screening did not have health insurance, and will thus not get proper medical care. [The New York Times, 9/6/06]


Thousands Of Americans Have Been Denied Health Coverage And Care


Twenty-Five Percent Of Adults Under 65 Say They Or A Family Member Have Been Denied Coverage Or Charged More For Having Pre-existing Condition. According to a June 2013 survey from the Kaiser Foundation, one quarter of respondents under 65 "say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition":


Americans with pre-existing medical conditions often face problems in getting and retaining good health insurance coverage, an issue dealt with directly by ACA in its "guaranteed issue" provision, which prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals on the basis of health status or pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014. The June survey finds that roughly half (49 percent) of adults under age 65 say they or someone in their household has a pre-existing condition, and many of them report problems related to getting and keeping insurance.


One quarter (25 percent) of these individuals (14 percent of all non-elderly adults) say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition. Further, nearly one in ten (9 percent) of these individuals say that in the past year, they or someone in their household has passed up a job opportunity, stayed at a job they would have quit otherwise, or decided not to retire in order to maintain their health coverage. [Kaiser Foundation, 6/19/13]


Forty-Five Thousand Americans Die Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance. In September 2009, a Harvard Medical School study found that a "lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States," The New York Times reported. The paper explained:


Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States -- a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.


[...]


The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance -- as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.


The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure. [The New York Times, 9/17/09]


Study Found That In 2010, Three Americans Died Every Hour From Lack Of Coverage. According to a June 2012 report from Families USA, "Across the nation, 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage in 2010," which works out to "three every hour." The report also found:


Between 2005 and 2010, the number of people who died prematurely each year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.


Between 2005 and 2010, the total number of people who died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage was 134,120.


Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. [Families USA, June 2012]


Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care By Health Plans In First Six Months Of Bush's First Term. According to data from the Census Bureau and a report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation analyzed by Families USA, "[M]ore than 7.5 million people experienced a problem with their health plan that resulted in a denial or delay of health care" in the month from President George W. Bush's inauguration to June 2001. Families USA wrote:


[A]pproximately 18.1 million Americans per year between 18 and 64 years of age experience a problem with their health plan that results in a denial or delay of medical care. [Families USA, 6/21/01]

---

Post them here.


BTW, there are MANY clinics around this nation who provide preventative care to the poorest among us, so can you bring up another straw man oppressed group to make your point?

Bolling Is Wrong: Here Are Just A Few Examples Of Americans Who Were Denied The Care They Needed


Twelve-Year-Old Died In 2007 From Abscessed Tooth After His Family's Medicaid Lapsed. In 2007, as The Washington Post reported:


Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old homeless child, died Sunday in a District hospital after an infection from a molar spread to his brain.


At the time he fell ill, his family's Medicaid coverage had lapsed. Even on the state plan, his mother said, the children lacked regular dental care and she had great difficulty finding a dentist. [The Washington Post, 3/3/07]


Seventeen-Year-Old's Insurance Revoked After He Tests HIV Positive. According to Huffington Post, in 2009:


The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."


[...]


Mitchell learned that he had HIV when, while heading to college, he donated blood. Fortis then rescinded his coverage, citing what turned out to be an erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy.


Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?" The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward. [Huffington Post, 9/17/09]


Woman Denied Coverage For Breast Cancer Because She Wasn't Diagnosed At Correct Clinic. From The Wall Street Journal:


In June 2003, Shirley Loewe went to Good Shepherd Medical Center here with a softball-size lump in her breast and was diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer. She didn't know it, but she had just made a big mistake.


Ms. Loewe was uninsured. Under federal law, she could have gotten Medicaid coverage -- and saved herself a lot of hardship -- if she'd gone to a different clinic less than a half-mile away. But by walking through Good Shepherd's doors, Ms. Loewe unwittingly let that opportunity slip and embarked on a four-year journey through the Byzantine U.S. health-care system.


It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics, two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She was denied assistance or care at least six times along the way, for reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.


Ms. Loewe eventually got treatment, but at personal cost and great aggravation. [The Wall Street Journal, 9/13/07]


Woman's Double Mastectomy Denied Over Disputed Acne Treatment. CNN reported that in 2009:


Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.


Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.


The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.


Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go ahead with the surgery.


[...]


Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage. The company said it had reviewed her medical records and found out that she had misinformed them about some of her medical history.


Beaton had listed her weight incorrectly. She also didn't disclose medication she had taken for a pre-existing heart condition -- medicine she wasn't taking when she originally applied for coverage. [CNN, 6/16/09]


9/11 Responders Without Insurance Face Inferior Coverage For Sustained Injuries. From The New York Times:


The largest health study yet of the thousands of workers who labored at ground zero shows that the impact of the rescue and recovery effort on their health has been more widespread and persistent than previously thought, and is likely to linger far into the future.


The study, released yesterday by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical Center, is expected to erase any lingering doubts about the connection between dust from the trade center and numerous diseases that the workers have reported suffering. It is also expected to increase pressure on the federal government to provide health care for sick workers who do not have health insurance.


[...]


There should no longer be any doubt about the health effects of the World Trade Center disaster," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of Mount Sinai's World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program. "Our patients are sick, and they will need ongoing care for the rest of their lives."


Dr. Herbert called the findings, which will be published tomorrow in Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, "very worrisome," especially because 40 percent of those who went to Mount Sinai for medical screening did not have health insurance, and will thus not get proper medical care. [The New York Times, 9/6/06]


Thousands Of Americans Have Been Denied Health Coverage And Care


Twenty-Five Percent Of Adults Under 65 Say They Or A Family Member Have Been Denied Coverage Or Charged More For Having Pre-existing Condition. According to a June 2013 survey from the Kaiser Foundation, one quarter of respondents under 65 "say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition":


Americans with pre-existing medical conditions often face problems in getting and retaining good health insurance coverage, an issue dealt with directly by ACA in its "guaranteed issue" provision, which prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals on the basis of health status or pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014. The June survey finds that roughly half (49 percent) of adults under age 65 say they or someone in their household has a pre-existing condition, and many of them report problems related to getting and keeping insurance.


One quarter (25 percent) of these individuals (14 percent of all non-elderly adults) say that they or a family member has ever been denied insurance or had their premium increased because of their pre-existing condition. Further, nearly one in ten (9 percent) of these individuals say that in the past year, they or someone in their household has passed up a job opportunity, stayed at a job they would have quit otherwise, or decided not to retire in order to maintain their health coverage. [Kaiser Foundation, 6/19/13]


Forty-Five Thousand Americans Die Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance. In September 2009, a Harvard Medical School study found that a "lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States," The New York Times reported. The paper explained:


Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States -- a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.


[...]


The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance -- as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.


The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure. [The New York Times, 9/17/09]


Study Found That In 2010, Three Americans Died Every Hour From Lack Of Coverage. According to a June 2012 report from Families USA, "Across the nation, 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage in 2010," which works out to "three every hour." The report also found:


Between 2005 and 2010, the number of people who died prematurely each year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.


Between 2005 and 2010, the total number of people who died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage was 134,120.


Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. [Families USA, June 2012]


Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care By Health Plans In First Six Months Of Bush's First Term. According to data from the Census Bureau and a report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation analyzed by Families USA, "[M]ore than 7.5 million people experienced a problem with their health plan that resulted in a denial or delay of health care" in the month from President George W. Bush's inauguration to June 2001. Families USA wrote:


[A]pproximately 18.1 million Americans per year between 18 and 64 years of age experience a problem with their health plan that results in a denial or delay of medical care. [Families USA, 6/21/01]

---

I'll accept your apology, FBT. But again, this is beyond a stupid arguement. Healthcare should not be provided to people only when they desperately need them via an emergency room.


Also, you people want to get rid of ObamaCare and go back to the old way. No good. If you believe life is sacred, Universal Heathcare is the solution. Everything else just means you don't really care that much about the life of your fellow man, only when they are in the womb. Then, who gives a gosh didly-arn... That's hypocritical, and you know it. Thus your big push for proof that we are not already providing healthcare to people.

---

You're not going to get an apology from me, so I hope your Obamacare is up to date because if you're holding your breath waiting for one, you may need a ride to the ER. 

 

Your messiah rammed Obamacare down our collective throats.  Nobody should be uninsured based on his promises.  You can post all the stats you want about how it was before the government took over the healthcare industry, but we're living in your utopia now.  If people are dying because they're uninsured, they're breaking the law by not having coverage.  And don't whine about affordability because I'm paying over $20k a year for my health insurance so you and your ilk can leach off the system and get your heavily subsidized coverage and free abortive services. 

 

Universal healthcare isn't the solution to anything other than allowing you and your sucklings to live off the backs of those who earn. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm curious about something. When your brother and sister-in-law discovered they were pregnant, how did they announce it to the family?


"Hey, we're having a potential child!"


When the miscarriage occurred, did they tell the family they lost a potential baby? Or did they say they lost the baby?


Did they have a potential baby shower, or did the miscarriage happen too early in the process for them to get that far?

Lame argument is lame.


But just to play along, people say they are HAVING a baby. The word HAVING implies, and is understood by everyone, to mean the baby isn't here yet.


Hence the potential of life. Dang, I'm good.

---