Tampon Tim

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Just one example I've been witness to.
An infant that had a condition that caused a blister as a third degree burn just from being touched. By the time she finally died, she had no skin. Unfortunately, she lived for weeks. It's palliative care, which "can" be medical, or not.

That was from an abortion?

 

[Spice]

That was from an abortion?

What difference does that make?????
But, no, not to my knowledge.

 

[Wandering Monk]

• Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the U.S. The procedures are expensive and often require travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
• Claims of abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth” are false. These scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal in the United States.
• Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
• Fourteen states currently ban abortion and 11 have gestational bans that restrict abortion at a certain point in pregnancy. An additional 16 states ban abortion at or near “viability”, the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb.
• Access to abortions later in pregnancy has always been limited; there are few providers that offer the services and the costs are often prohibitive. Changes in the landscape of abortion access in the U.S. post-Dobbs has led to an increase in out of state travel for abortion services as well as an increase in delays. It is still unknown whether this has led to an increase in the share of abortions that are performed later in pregnancy.

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What difference does that make?????
But, no, not to my knowledge.

So any infant born does not have to be given any care to save the life and health of the infant. It just needs "care". They went from a specific mandate to a vague one. They did this to protect abortion doctors if an abortion leads to an alive infant, they don't have to give if medical care to preserve its life.

 

[We Never Know]

Just one example I've been witness to.
An infant that had a condition that caused a blister as a third degree burn just from being touched. By the time she finally died, she had no skin. Unfortunately, she lived for weeks. It's palliative care, which "can" be medical, or not.

I think that's called or related to epidermylosis bulosa(not sure of the spelling)

 

[Spice]

• Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the U.S. The procedures are expensive and often require travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
• Claims of abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth” are false. These scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal in the United States.
• Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
• Fourteen states currently ban abortion and 11 have gestational bans that restrict abortion at a certain point in pregnancy. An additional 16 states ban abortion at or near “viability”, the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb.
• Access to abortions later in pregnancy has always been limited; there are few providers that offer the services and the costs are often prohibitive. Changes in the landscape of abortion access in the U.S. post-Dobbs has led to an increase in out of state travel for abortion services as well as an increase in delays. It is still unknown whether this has led to an increase in the share of abortions that are performed later in pregnancy.

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

There must be a lot of confusion between "late pregnancy abortion" and "pre-mature induced labor."
Let's take the example of twins:
One dies. What does the medical team do in an effort to save the other? At how far along in the pregnancy? There's just TOO much, IMO, that has to be considered to spell it out in law beyond "medically informed parental decision."

 

[Spice]

So any infant born does not have to be given any care to save the life and health of the infant. It just needs "care". They went from a specific mandate to a vague one. They did this to protect abortion doctors if an abortion leads to an alive infant, they don't have to give if medical care to preserve its life.

I am not a medical person. However, I'm a woman who has been through two full term pregnancies and a few other uterus procedures. I can not imagine an "abortion" resulting in live birth. Maybe back in the midwife coathanger days? Hopefully we won't be forced to go there.

WE'RE NOT GOING BACK!

 

[Revoltingest]

And nearly impossible to prove.

Government regularly enforces anti-trust legislation.

But they did it.

Can't prove it, but you believe it.
It's not possible that the competition
determines prices?

 

[We Never Know]

I am not a medical person. However, I'm a woman who has been through two full term pregnancies and a few other uterus procedures. I can not imagine an "abortion" resulting in live birth. Maybe back in the midwife coathanger days? Hopefully we won't be forced to go there.

WE'RE NOT GOING BACK!

The is actually a born alive abortion survivors protection act.

"The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a proposed United States law that would penalize healthcare practitioners who fail to provide care for an infant that is born-alive from an abortion attempt.[1] It was introduced in the 114th, 115th, 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses."

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Spice]

I think that's called or related to epidermylosis bulosa(not sure of the spelling)

It could be. That's many more than 40 years ago. A few weeks at a time, over a couple of years, hanging out with other mothers in a major pediatric center is an experience that you try to block out as much as possible. But it doesn't work very well for many of those "moments" of stranger camaraderie.

 

[F1fan]

That was from an abortion?

This illustrates the bias of the right. There is little acknowledgement that reproduction isn't a perfect process as a miracle by God. No, human reproduction is like all other animals and organisms, there are often defects and flaws. My best friend in high school developed mental health problems, along with his two brothers. One brother committed suicide. The other had such severe problems he had to be institutionalized. My friend ended up on medications for life that help him maintain some stabolity, but he can't keep a job, or even be able to live a life that any of us would consider normal. It turned out their dad had a gene that caused the mental health issues. He never should have had kids.

There's a reason parents with a fetus have it checked for abnormalities. Having a deformed or mentally disabled child can require resources a family can't provide. The women who are suing Texas had pregnancies that went bad, and they couldn't get the healthcare they needed because of the extreme nature of the republican laws. These laws are so vague that they don't recognize defects and dying fetuses. All they care about is the medical procedure that ends the preganacy, with no consideration of the medical facts. That's why the right's idealism fails to be pro-life.

If the right was really pro-life they would be out there protesting just as hard for universal healthcare as they do anti-abortion. But they don't. That's why their movement is political and not moral. Any right winger who claims to be pro-life but is against universal healthcare should keep their damn mouth shut.

 

[We Never Know]

This illustrates the bias of the right. There is little acknowledgement that reproduction isn't a perfect process as a miracle by God. No, human reproduction i like all other animals and organisms, there are often defects and flaws. My best friend in high school developed mental health problems, along with his two brothers. One brother committed suicide. The other had such severe problems he had to be institutionalized. My friend ended up on medications for life that help him maintain some stabolity, but he can't keep a job, or even be able to live a life that any of us would consider normal. It turned out their dad had a gene that caused the mental health issues. He never should have had kids.

There's a reason parents with a fetus have it checked for abnormalities. Having a deformed or mentally disabled child can require resources a family can't provide. The women who are suing Texas had pregnancies that went bad, and they couldn't get the healthcare they needed because of the extreme nature of the republican laws. These laws are so vague that they don't recognize defects and dying fetuses. All they care about is the medical procedure that ends the preganacy, with no consideration of the medical facts. That's why the right's idealism fails to be pro-life.

If the right was really pro-like they would be out there protesting just as hard for universal healthcare as they do anti-abortion. But they don't. That's why their movement is political and not moral. Any right winger who claims to be pro-life but is against universal healthcare should keep their damn mouth shut.

What do you mean when you say universal health care?

Health care for everyone regardless?

Free health care for everyone?

Affordable health care for everyone?

What exactly?

 

[Spice]

What do you mean when you say universal health care?

Health care for everyone regardless?

Free health care for everyone?

Affordable health care for everyone?

What exactly?

Whatever is necessary so parents don't have to make a choice between feeding and housing one child OR medical treatment for another.

 

[We Never Know]

Whatever is necessary so parents don't have to make a choice between feeding and housing one child OR medical treatment for another.

Oh. So universal health care is only for parents/people with kids?

 

[Spice]

Oh. So universal health care is only for people with kids?

Of course not.

 

[We Never Know]

Of course not.

Then you need to elaborate more on what is meant by universal health care.
Your post only has parents with children.

Whatever is necessary so parents don't have to make a choice between feeding and housing one child OR medical treatment for another.

 

[Spice]

Then you need to elaborate more on what is meant by universal health care.
Your post only has parents with children.

I was responding to your comment on F1's post. I'm not going to swing this discussion from live birth care to ACA or it's replacement possibility. Maybe F1 has that kind of energy, but forgive me, I don't. We (collective we) just need to include all "life" if we're going to rally as "pro-lifers" -- old folks, too.

 

[We Never Know]

I was responding to your comment on F1's post. I'm not going to swing this discussion from live birth care to ACA or it's replacement possibility. Maybe F1 has that kind of energy, but forgive me, I don't. We (collective we) just need to include all "life" if we're going to rally as "pro-lifers" -- old folks, too.

Ah but he also talked about adults that had problems.

 

[F1fan]

What do you mean when you say universal health care?

Health care for everyone regardless?

Free health care for everyone?

Affordable health care for everyone?

What exactly?

What I think there should be is a card issued to every citizen that can use it for healthcare. The bill is paid by the federal government. It is funded by a small tax increase that is proportional to income and wealth. By offering annual free checkups citizens will be able to catch any illnesses before they get severe. Anyone who wants to get their own health insurance and have more premium access to healthcare can opt for it, and up to a certain income level they get a tax credit.

Even though many more people have health insurance companies are demanding more and more payments, even for routine checkups. With infation this may prevent many from getting screenings, thus if they become ill will cost them more in the long run. Insurance companies as a whole are suffering more losses and are adjusting their policies to make sure their stay profitable. The home insurance industry is close to collapse with some companies cancelling policies for any home that is seen as a higher risk. This actually happened to me as my house in 115 years old and my broken said Farmers is being more selective, and cancelling older homes. This means higher prices for consumers. Florida, Colorado and California are seeing insurance companies pulling out due to weather and fires.

I predict insurance is going to be a bigger and bigger cost in coming years, and the government might have to be the solution to help maintain quality of life and economic stability. Imagine a new housing collapse because owners can't afford the taxes and insurance? And if people start defauling on medial bills more and more? Meanwhile the rich accumulate more wealth as their tax rates remain low, and loopholes stay in place.

 

[We Never Know]

What I think there should be is a card issued to every citizen that can use it for healthcare. The bill is paid by the federal government. It is funded by a small tax increase that is proportional to income and wealth. By offering annual free checkups citizens will be able to catch any illnesses before they get severe. Anyone who wants to get their own health insurance and have more premium access to healthcare can opt for it, and up to a certain income level they get a tax credit.

And what if it goes beyond free checkups. Something is found. What then? Who pays?

Even though many more people have health insurance companies are demanding more and more payments, even for routine checkups. With infation this may prevent many from getting screenings, thus if they become ill will cost them more in the long run. Insurance companies as a whole are suffering more losses and are adjusting their policies to make sure their stay profitable. The home insurance industry is close to collapse with some companies cancelling policies for any home that is seen as a higher risk. This actually happened to me as my house in 115 years old and my broken said Farmers is being more selective, and cancelling older homes. This means higher prices for consumers. Florida, Colorado and California are seeing insurance companies pulling out due to weather and fires.

Yes. I already, a few weeks ago posted about insurance companies and homes.
Example some are now saying we will insure your house but not your roof.

I predict insurance is going to be a bigger and bigger cost in coming years, and the government might have to be the solution to help maintain quality of life and economic stability. Imagine a new housing collapse because owners can't afford the taxes and insurance? And if people start defauling on medial bills more and more? Meanwhile the rich accumulate more wealth as their tax rates remain low, and loopholes stay in place.

Insurance companies complain they are going broke but many agents live like kings.
One agent I know has...
-a $500,000 dollar house
-a new mustang
-a new ford F150 shelby edition
-a new 4 door jeep truck
etc etc
I feel sorry for the poor guy

My point is if agents are doing this well, the companies should be doing much better.