17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat

[Emma]

You're right, it will be rationed - Obama's own team have said so. The so called 'death panels' will exist - Obama's own team have said so. Abortion will be covered - Obama's own team have said so.

And, you're right - it is unconstitutional.

Wrong on all accounts.

But why should you care, you don't live here.

Go ahead Emma provide for us the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the Government to run National Health Care, to tax for it and to pay for it. And if you claim there is a General welfare clause you will be wrong, that is NOT a granted power, it is a descriptive sentence used to identify why the GRANTED powers were given.

Nope. Not 'general welfare'.

Article I, sections 8 and 9.

Article II, section 2.

 

[JW Frogen]

what next...something has to be done.

I agree, I think the US should sell all obese babies to the Chinese for fuel.

Ms. Liberty has charged up her credit card, America has a huge trade deficit, something has to be done.

There are a lot of fat, useless babies in America who could be put to good use.

 

[Si modo]

what next...something has to be done.

I agree, I think the US should sell all obese babies to the Chinese for fuel.

Ms. Liberty has charged up her credit card, America has a huge trade deficit, something has to be done.

There are a lot of fat, useless babies in America who could be put to good use.

Tsk, tsk. Everyone knows obese babies are carbon-based fuel. Don't you care about the environment?

 

[Emma]

what next...something has to be done.

I agree, I think the US should sell all obese babies to the Chinese for fuel.

Ms. Liberty has charged up her credit card, America has a huge trade deficit, something has to be done.

There are a lot of fat, useless babies in America who could be put to good use.

Tsk, tsk. Everyone knows obese babies are carbon-based fuel. Don't you care about the environment?

Meh.

They're a renewable resource.

 

[Si modo]

I agree, I think the US should sell all obese babies to the Chinese for fuel.

Ms. Liberty has charged up her credit card, America has a huge trade deficit, something has to be done.

There are a lot of fat, useless babies in America who could be put to good use.

Tsk, tsk. Everyone knows obese babies are carbon-based fuel. Don't you care about the environment?

Meh.

They're a renewable resource.

Good point. Still, carbon credits.

 

[California Girl]

Wrong on all accounts.

But why should you care, you don't live here.

Emma, grow the **** up. I am not wrong -I am right.

1. It's already rationed. It will ALWAYS be rationed. No matter what system we have. Healthcare is not an infinite resource. So don't even try those failed scare tactics and attempt to pin the blame on the current (or ANY) administration.

2. Death panels are a figment of the right's fevered mind.

3. Abortion will not be covered. No one is brave enough to risk that one.

4. It is not unconstitutional. HHS is a Constitutionally created department of the Executive, and healthcare falls directly within their purview as expressed in their mission. Therefore, according to what is explicitly stated in Article I, sections 8 and 9, Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass these laws and regulations.

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

4. It is not Constitutional. Live with it. If you support healthcare, then you are happy to throw away the founding principles of our nation. I am not prepared to do that.

 

[Emma]

Tsk, tsk. Everyone knows obese babies are carbon-based fuel. Don't you care about the environment?

Meh.

They're a renewable resource.

Good point. Still, carbon credits.

But think of the decreased need for landfill space (not to mention improved air quality *whew*)... I think he's on to something

 

[Emma]

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

Where did they promise that?

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

Again you're talking about delegating limited resources, so that's different from our current system how?

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

Eh, I disagree. For medically necessary abortions? Probably so. For those of "convenience"? Nope.

4. It is not Constitutional.

Sure it is, and I've provided proof.

 

[veritas]

Emma, grow the **** up. I am not wrong -I am right.

1. It's already rationed. It will ALWAYS be rationed. No matter what system we have. Healthcare is not an infinite resource. So don't even try those failed scare tactics and attempt to pin the blame on the current (or ANY) administration.

2. Death panels are a figment of the right's fevered mind.

3. Abortion will not be covered. No one is brave enough to risk that one.

4. It is not unconstitutional. HHS is a Constitutionally created department of the Executive, and healthcare falls directly within their purview as expressed in their mission. Therefore, according to what is explicitly stated in Article I, sections 8 and 9, Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass these laws and regulations.

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

4. It is not Constitutional. Live with it. If you support healthcare, then you are happy to throw away the founding principles of our nation. I am not prepared to do that.

Dr. Emmanuel's work to which you refer deals with transplant decisions. Taken out of context they seem extreme, but taken in context they are the way we manage rare resources such as available organs. Try reading things in their entirety rather than regurgitating Faux propaganda.

The Hyde amendment is in effect whether it is inserted into a bill or not. It's law. It is not customary to reiterate established code whenever a new bill is written. Again, you are short on background as well as facts.

 

[Emma]

1. It's already rationed. It will ALWAYS be rationed. No matter what system we have. Healthcare is not an infinite resource. So don't even try those failed scare tactics and attempt to pin the blame on the current (or ANY) administration.

2. Death panels are a figment of the right's fevered mind.

3. Abortion will not be covered. No one is brave enough to risk that one.

4. It is not unconstitutional. HHS is a Constitutionally created department of the Executive, and healthcare falls directly within their purview as expressed in their mission. Therefore, according to what is explicitly stated in Article I, sections 8 and 9, Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass these laws and regulations.

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

4. It is not Constitutional. Live with it. If you support healthcare, then you are happy to throw away the founding principles of our nation. I am not prepared to do that.

Dr. Emmanuel's work to which you refer deals with transplant decisions. Taken out of context they seem extreme, but taken in context they are the way we manage rare resources such as available organs. Try reading things in their entirety rather than regurgitating Faux propaganda.

The Hyde amendment is in effect whether it is inserted into a bill or not. It's law. It is not customary to reiterate established code whenever a new bill is written. Again, you are short on background as well as facts.

 

[California Girl]

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

Where did they promise that?

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

Again you're talking about delegating limited resources, so that's different from our current system how?

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

Eh, I disagree. For medically necessary abortions? Probably so. For those of "convenience"? Nope.

4. It is not Constitutional.

Sure it is, and I've provided proof.

For the last time, this system is supposed to be 'better' than our current system. So arguing that the current system is blah blah blah, so why not the new one is NOT a legitimate response. They said there would not be rationing. I'm not going to provide crap links to crap media to back that up but you know and I know that that is what our congresscritters have stated.

The 'death panels' will exist.

Even the Catholic Church - and they desperately want to support healthcare - will not support any of the current bills because they do not include the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is THE ONLY amendment that prohibits abortion, except in very limited circumstances (medical, rape, incest), why will congress not include Hyde?

And it's unconstitutional.

 

[veritas]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

 

[veritas]

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

Where did they promise that?

Again you're talking about delegating limited resources, so that's different from our current system how?

Eh, I disagree. For medically necessary abortions? Probably so. For those of "convenience"? Nope.

4. It is not Constitutional.

Sure it is, and I've provided proof.

For the last time, this system is supposed to be 'better' than our current system. So arguing that the current system is blah blah blah, so why not the new one is NOT a legitimate response. They said there would not be rationing. I'm not going to provide crap links to crap media to back that up but you know and I know that that is what our congresscritters have stated.

The 'death panels' will exist.

Even the Catholic Church - and they desperately want to support healthcare - will not support any of the current bills because they do not include the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is THE ONLY amendment that prohibits abortion, except in very limited circumstances (medical, rape, incest), why will congress not include Hyde?

And it's unconstitutional.

Oh and we don't have a "system". It's a patchwork of insurance company red tape and 51 states [DC too] of separate laws and regs and is generally a ******* mess. There is no system, unless you count the courts which are clogged because of a lack of this non-existent system.

 

[Si modo]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

 

[Emma]

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

Where did they promise that?

Again you're talking about delegating limited resources, so that's different from our current system how?

Eh, I disagree. For medically necessary abortions? Probably so. For those of "convenience"? Nope.

4. It is not Constitutional.

Sure it is, and I've provided proof.

For the last time, this system is supposed to be 'better' than our current system. So arguing that the current system is blah blah blah, so why not the new one is NOT a legitimate response. They said there would not be rationing. I'm not going to provide crap links to crap media to back that up but you know and I know that that is what our congresscritters have stated.

The 'death panels' will exist.

Your claim is that the administration stated that.

Even the Catholic Church - and they desperately want to support healthcare - will not support any of the current bills because they do not include the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is THE ONLY amendment that prohibits abortion, except in very limited circumstances (medical, rape, incest), why will congress not include Hyde?

Did you even read the above post?

And it's unconstitutional.

To you I quote my favorite judge: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

I've provided proof that it is indeed Constitutional.

 

[Emma]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

The "argument" is a strawman.

 

[Si modo]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

The "argument" is a strawman.

How so?

1. It's already rationed. It will ALWAYS be rationed. ....

 

[veritas]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

Screw off gas bag. If I want your input I'll quote one of your posts. Who died and bequeathed you the nanny apron? I was responding directly to CG's post. Why don't you wait until somebody cares about what you have to post......if you live that long......

 

[Si modo]

And let me clarify: We agree that it is already rationed.

Right now, those deciding who gets resources are health care professionals, as it should be and should remain.

It is not a given that those making such decisions on resources will be health care professionals under a new system.

 

[California Girl]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

That's a very helpful contribution. Thanks.

But, the issue is not about the Catholic Church per se, it about abortions. I use the Catholic Church as an example because they are clearly pro health care and also anti abortion. The Church was asked, by the Administration, to come out in support of HR3200. They analysed the bill and decided against it... because it does not have the Hyde Amendment. Now, the Catholic Church has some of the best legal minds in the world at its disposal, and if they say no Hyde, no support, then they have a good reason for saying.

However, feel free to let your hatred of a religion overcome your ability to see a point.