What goes around comes around.
When Ralph Northam won the gubernatorial election in Virginia he was congratulated by Kamala Harris:
That’s called irony. Northam, the democrat governor of Virginia and advocate of infanticide, has been exposed as a racist and a bigot.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam appears to have almost no choice but to resign after losing support from virtually the entire state Democratic party and other key allies, who late Friday urged the governor to leave office because of a racist photo in which he appeared more than 30 years ago.
The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, the state House Democratic Caucus and the state Senate Democratic Caucus all called on Northam to resign, along with several key progressive groups that have been some of the governor’s closest political allies.
Their calls for Northam to step down came in a wave late Friday, after the Democrat had apologized for appearing in a photo in which one person is dressed in blackface and another is wearing a full Ku Klux Klan uniform. The photo appeared in his 1984 medical school yearbook.
Northam also refused to shake hands with a black opponent in 2013:
As Northam “apologized” the freaking idiots at CNN turned him into a Republican. Watch the chyron at the bottom:
https://www.facebook.com/thc1776/videos/2262153527441649/
Northam has to resign. Period. No forgiveness. No sympathy. I say it all the time- there is no racism like liberal racism.
Well, dems, you opened this door. Now you can own it. I cannot wait to see how Kamala Harris responds to this.
Karma.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@ Deplorable Me:
“promot(ing) an argument supporting murder on a whim.”
Perhaps you believe that the financial health of our country (remember that we are at least partially capitalist) ISN’T important to our national security, and thus a “whim,” but I don’t see it that way.
Regarding immigration, I have long pontificated on this site that a country has every right to lock its borders down tight, and allow not a soul to enter or leave. (Obviously I disagree with the stand taken by the European Union on this issue.) Where I disagree with a growing body of respected Republicans is that Trump’s initially sought UGE wall won’t fix the problems he promises it will. And honestly, I can’t wait for whatever Trump-and-friends want gets built, come to then discover that the problems don’t go away. Go ahead, build whatever you want to build, and the same issues will continue unabated. As for the politics of it, we waste way more money than what the Dems are holding up. It’s a silly political hot potato and nothing more, and such a shame that Trump has let Pelosi get his goat with it. He put his foot in his mouth by taking credit for the shutdown, and now the Dems can’t wait for him to make another equally stupid mistake. Oh, and for the record, I think that your $200 Billion cost is the product of a cost-benefit analysis gone terribly wrong, but as I’m fine with ending immigration all the way down to the last person anyway, that does really matter, now does it?
And back to your misplaced reverence for life, I can’t help you there. We “humans” have overseen species’ extinctions here on Earth at a rate that exceeds what happened (as far as we can determine) during the various “mass-extinctions” that have occurred during geologic time. Other animals we kill for pleasure, excusing our wasteful murder of them as what, a “God-given right?” But we can’t continence the humane euthanasia of the terminally ill? Considering how many people our weapons kill (on our streets, in other countries we play “war” with, or in other countries where our weapons customers use our “products” for their intended deadly purpose), I find your moral outrage to be just a slight bit disingenuous. Life is cheap, and you know it, and we’re wasting too much money on an absurdly common commodity: human life.
@George Wells:
If you think the expansion of the excuses for abortion is an economic issue, you are delusional. As I have said repeatedly, it was already permissible for abortion in justified medial situations.
Trump stepped up and took responsibility for what happened under his administration, something past leaders avoided. Yet, the responsibility for the shutdown rested solely with Schumer and its extension was on Pelosi.
What an odd statement. NO ONE should have the power of life or death over innocent citizens and the LAST person that would be capable of such a judgement would be a liberal.
@ Deplorable Me:
“If you think the expansion of the excuses for abortion is an economic issue, you are delusional.”
No, that isn’t what I think, and I apologize if I implied as much. The LARGEST economic issue in the life-vs-death arena isn’t the astronomical cost of maintaining premature births, although that cost has skyrocketed. Neither is the LARGEST issue the preposterous cost of heroic efforts to salvage those births that are tragically deformed but which the mother wants US to pay for, to which must be added the cost of however long it takes for that monstrosity to naturally pass in spite of efforts to keep it alive. What IS the LARGEST cost in this arena is the cost of heroic efforts to prolong the END OF LIFE. You have avoided comment on that problem, although I have brought it up repeatedly, and it is by far the costliest and certainly the most useless waste of our medical resources. It is also a category of personal freedom in which our government most aggressively interferes, in spite of the fact that whatever “crime” is implied by suicide – regardless of whether it is assisted or not – is victimless save for the poor bastard who wishes to check out with dignity rather than suffer prolonged interment in a dying facility.
We’d all like to “go” in our sleep, but the sad truth is that very few of us will get the chance to do that. And don’t tell me that what I describe is rare. I’ve been around long enough to attend to quite a few friends who spend the last five or ten years of their lives in a bed. I can tell you with authority that being turned from time to time doesn’t prevent bedsores, bedpans frequently don’t arrive in time, palliative pain remediation is never enough, and the family is usually quite content NOT to visit and suffer the guilt trip that finding out how miserable their beloved’s life has become sends them on. This isn’t about a few thousand “premies” (although holding down that cost would be welcome), nor is it about a few thousand monsters born with half a brain or no arms to a mother who “loves” them anyway. This is MILLIONS of Americans, and medical science can keep every last one of them alive for years beyond their natural expiration dates. When you buy a car, the dealer rightly asks how you are going to pay for it. When you propose wasting tens of trillions of dollars on useless end-of-life care, I think it’s reasonable to ask who is going to pay for that too, and so far, nobody has come up with a good answer. So I’m still waiting…
@George Wells: The only way what you describe will happen is with the one payer system, socialist medicine.
If parents want to save their premie baby carry their own private insurance or pay out of pocket its nun ur beez.
There were no such provisions in these bills.
It should be a choice of an adult who is suffering and there is no hope none.
But from someone who is just suffering a bout of depression. Then I have major reservations for assistance.
What we are concerned with are the limits of murdering a perfectly formed infant because of a womans raging hormones that are present during pregnancy, or a bad break up with the baby daddy.
@George Wells:
You should probably provide a citation for that.
@Deplorable Me: @kitt:
This is what George Wells is advocating:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there (in front of the health commission/committee) and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
― George Bernard Shaw
Medical care determined on your productive value. It is also what Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm Emanuel and advisor to Obamacare bill) advocated in his recommendations for Obamacare. He created his “Complete Lives System” where medical care would be zero for a new born (no productive abilities), increasing substantially at ages 18-40 and going down from there. It was called “The Reaper Curve.” Medical care, based on one lone factor; are you a productive citizen who is capable of producing enough to, as George Bernard Shaw, a eugenicist, justify your existence.
Wells talked about his father having an End of Life Directive that a hospital refused to honor. What year? Where? What hospital? Because a simple emergency appeal to a court would have directed the hospital to honor the patient’s wishes. Emergency court appeals generally take less than five days (hence, the term “emergency.”)
@George Wells:
I paid for that through almost 50 years of paying Medicare premiums, not to mention that I still pay Medicare premiums that are deducted from Social Security along with a supplemental insurance policy from BC/BS and another policy for “extended care”. So there is your answer. I paid for insurance for almost 50 years that I did not have and now, you and Zeke Emanuel would remove that from every senior in the U.S.
@George Wells: 39
The act of murdering an infant is known as infanticide and is performed by a murderer.
No part of what you said in that quote even slightly resembles the situation under discussion. First. it doesn’t have to be a physician attending, it can be a nurse, midwife, practicioner, or some others. At no point is it stated that the baby has to be ‘deformed’. It only says they will make the baby comfortable while they discuss options. The options can be that they don’t think the baby is pretty enough, or might have 6 toes or might be too intelligent to live with the morons sitting there having that discussion. And there is no requirement that this discussion take place ‘before’ the baby is born. There is no stated limit on the time they can have the discussion as to whether to murder the baby, or not. Obviously this being the case, I suspect it will eventually find it’s way into court (if this law were ever approved) of cases having been decided a week or more after the birth. Note again: there is no time limit in the bill for this discussion.
It turns out that the proposal that Northam was supporting (but will not pass in the Republican Legislature) dealt with taking the Big Brother State (Little Government, right?)
Allowed? Really, so it was still up to the doctor?
So why not just set a limit on the amount of money that can be spent to maintain the life and just kill it if it exceeds that amount if it’s just all about the money.
So it’s just a matter of money, not morality?
Did I miss something?
Wow, really? just a starting point? So just whenever someone’s medical costs get to be too much, just give them the axe? So now we could theoretically go up to say 6 years old (If they’ve cost too much to this point, consider it permanent and terminate them rather than pour money down a rat hole. Then, when someone get’s on Medicare, just go ahead and euthanize them. Cremation is a lot cheaper than medical care. .
@George Wells: 41
George, I’m interpreting this as ‘ well, we had this baby, then I got my leg cut off when he was about 4 years old and I knew I wasn’t gonna be able to support my kid any longer so without him eating for a few weeks, his days were definitely numbered, so my wife just ran him down to the crematory and told them to light his fire. It was the ‘humane’ thing to do. Didn’t want the little feller suffering for weeks and then just dying anyhow. Maybe you should read over some of the things you say before you push that ‘print’ key.
@Deplorable Me: 43
Deplorable, as you well know, AFTER the baby is born, it can no longer be ‘aborted’, but it can be murdered.
@George Wells: George, I’m sorry to hear about your father’s medical condition and how long he was forced to endure it. I do think there is a legitimate time for all (especially the patient) to agree that euthanasia is much preferred to some conditions. My father died from pancreas cancer and he spent several extremely painful months, that I know he was praying he could just go ahead and die instead of having to endure that. Conditions such as these are very different than a young mother deciding her daughter shouldn’t live because she has an extra toe on one foot, or something else about that serious, or she just decided she didn’t want her.
@Deplorable Me: Deplorable, this question about when life becomes too expensive to allow it to continue is interesting. If that concept were applied ‘exactly’ then there would be no prisons. Everyone knows it costs more to maintain a person in prison than it does for him to work on a job that allows him to support himself. So one crime that requires prison would equal ‘death sentence’. Suppose a person broke his neck and had to spend his life in a wheelchair. Wow, automatic death sentence. Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of this. That means there wouldn’t be any homeless people. If they can’t support themselves, apply the axe to the neck.
@retire05: I was thinking along those lines on Medicare also, Retire. I see them post numbers all the time that medicare costs the goverment $3 for every $1 that the patient pays. I don’t believe that. I’ve been covered with Medicare for 13 years. I pay $131 a month to SS, 250 for medicare supplement $20 for part D coverage and $132 year co-pay(or deductable). All that in addition to the thousands I paid over my 50 years of working. No, the government still owes me quite a bit and unless a catastrophe occurs, I’ll never break even on it. I pay much more than the gov pays (and they’re paying with my money) I have about 5 dr appointments a year. each one is billed at about $100 bucks. part A and B pays 80% my supplement pays 20% that’s about If I paid the full amount in cash at the same rate, I would be paying about $500 a year. As it is I’m paying at least out of pocket premiums are near $5K a year. They pay out basically nothing. The only time medicare itself spends money is when the 80% doesn’t cover all the costs, they have to pay the difference. they have everyone brainwashed into believing the gov is paying that 80%. LOL..
@ ALL my friends at FA:
Good to hear from you ALL!
Retire 05 would have you believe that I am ADVOCATING something. I am not. If you believe that I am a died-in-the-wool Democrat (I am not) then you would think that I FAVOR expanding all of the social safety nets like Medicare… but I don’t, because I don’t think we can afford to. I believe in private insurance because that industry pays for care to the people who can afford it, and I don’t believe that people who cannot afford it deserve it for no reason more complicated than that we can’t afford to be limitlessly generous. Again different than the Democratic platform, wouldn’t you agree? Put another way: We are NOT a socialism, and medical care is not an equal right. If you think it is, you’re a Socialist.
Regarding the abortion abortion/infanticide hysteria, there have been exactly TWO post-20th-week abortions performed in Virginia since 2002 – it isn’t an issue here, except in the minds of people who are desperate for something to foam at the mouth over. Given that paltry statistic, I really have moved on to what has impacted me repeatedly, and that is the plight of the terminally dying.
Yes, Redteam, there IS a difference between murdering babies whose mothers don’t like their hair color and giving our dying population (in the millions) a shred of dignity. Have you visited ANYONE interred in a dying facility lately? Did you miss the lines of wheelchairs in the hallways, occupied by drooling, wailing vegetables? To Retire 05’s point, why should families have to go to court to sue a hospital? That’s bringing a branch of the government into a decisional situation that should remain between the patient and the doctor.
And on the immigration question, what happened? Y’all suddenly figure out that I’m on your side on that one? LOL! As it is, Trump’s shutting down most of the asylum-seeking flow has had the effect that thousands of those “caravan” folks have given up and are returning from whence they came. That didn’t take a concrete wall to accomplish. I still respect the right of a country to shut off immigration if it wants to, but in this case I think it is sad that what is happening is what I call the “ADT effect.” Home security systems give homeowners a false sense of security because they are only good enough to prevent the most casual of unwanted entries. Really motivated criminals walk right through commercial security installations. Same thing with a “wall.” It will slow down the flow of people who are looking for work – the vast majority of illegal immigrants – but it won’t slow down the flow of illegal drugs other than a fraction of the marijuana entering our country. When the authorities intercept 200 pounds of cocaine, it wasn’t being carried across the Rio Grande in a wet back-pack. The fentanyl comes from China, and opioids aren’t coming from down south either. But like I said, do build that wall, and watch the GOP get punished for it when it doesn’t even slow drug traffic.
@retire05:
Just for you, Sweetheart: Make sure that you know what your long-term care will actually cover. A long-time friend of mine – we’ll call her Ellen because that was her name – had had a series of strokes over the past ten years, and after two weeks in an induced coma and a month in New Hampshire’s Hancock Medical Center, she was shipped to an “institution” to be “kept” until her funds ran out. That “keeping” cost Ellen over $700 daily in spite of her having Medicare AND long-term care insurance. Once I realized she would go broke in less than a year, I got busy. It took me three months and a lawyer to get her released into my personal care. I brought her to my home in Virginia, where she lived another 26 months in a loving home where she received better care than is ever available in a commercial setting. I charged her nothing. A stroke finally took her, but she died sitting up in her rocking chair, not plugged into a room-full of space-age life extending technology.
The Law doesn’t allow physician-assisted suicide, no matter what you might beg for in whatever advance directives you bother to have your lawyer draw up for you to sign. “Directives” MIGHT help your next-of-kin keep the hospital from plugging you into whatever life-prolonging technology that you were lucky enough to anticipate in writing, but GOD help you if you said only that you were not to be “kept alive,” because in effect, THAT directive amounts to suicide, and that’s against the Law. There is something in the Law that allows hospitals to PRESUME that once you are unconscious, you would WANT them to sustain your life, no matter what your documents say. The only solution I know of is to not call 911 in the first place when you get to feeling like the end is near.
@Redteam: Another example would be my niece. She began falling a lot and eventually lost leg functions and, after numerous misdiagnoses, was diagnosed with transverse myelitis, a condition most doctors have never seen. It was brought about by a viral infection in the spinal cord. The prognosis was dim. However, it just so happened that one doctor in the area was an expert on the condition and the corrective action was to transfuse ALL of her blood, since the virus could not be gotten rid of.
This cleared her of the disease, but she could not walk. She is “learning” to walk again, now able to walk with leg braces and sticks, but she works and fights to get better. She wants to have children but is too afraid of falling to try. Her strength, bravery and hard work, all without a shred of whiny “why me” self pity, is inspirational. It was quite a moving experience when she was able to walk down the aisle with her Dad for her wedding.
So, was a young girl of 25 worth the expense to save or should we have just put a bullet in her head? Who makes THAT call? It will be a dark day in this great country when such an approach is even seriously considered.
@Redteam: But you have to keep in mind that the Democrats have given YOUR coverage away to millions of people who NEVER paid a nickel into the program.
@George Wells:
Um… the GOVERNOR of that state made it an issue; it’s not something invented or taken out of context. To satisfy a debt to Planned Parenthood, he pushed to greatly expand late term abortions. There was absolutely NO reason to do it; true emergencies are already covered.
The wall will essentially cut off illegal immigration not sneaking through ports of entry. They no longer simply walk across; they will have to climb or dig their way into our country, which takes significant time and gives border patrol time to react and stop it at the source. ALL drugs will now have to go through ports of entry and detection there is being intensified.
@George Wells:
You are basing your opinion on cost effectiveness. How is that any different that a productivity base or Emanuel’s Reaper Curve? It is not. Perhaps the Democrats should not have thrown charity organizations that were faith based under the bus. Those faith based charities provided medical care to those who could not afford it. Americans, who through their monetary donations, taking care of other Americans who could not afford medical care. Not the government.
I am not your Sweetheart.
Our judicial system is designed to resolve issues that we cannot remedy independently. Why should anyone have to resolve issues such as divorce, child custody, contract violations, next of kin, et al? Should those issues not remain between the parties to work out?
You had a bad experience. That experience is NOT representative of the populace as a whole. And you equated humans with a cat. How sad that you cannot give greater value to human life. There are no guarantees in life. No guarantee you will be born perfect, never experience depression or pain.
And you are totally wrong about the barriers Trump wants to build. The barriers that currently exist redirect (funnel) illegal traffic to other areas. That means that Border Patrol has less ground to cover, can concentrate on those existing avenues and give greater protection to the nation as a whole.
@retire05:
“How sad that you cannot give greater value to human life.”
Sad, perhaps, but sad because HUMANS (not myself) did the devaluing by making themselves overly plentiful. Applying classical economic theory to the concept of “value” vis-a-vis the supply-and-demand curve, the greater the supply, the lower the price (or “value”), which more than gently suggests that the unit value of a white rhinoceros should be at least a million times more then the “value” of a human “person.” I didn’t make it so, mankind did. If I was the angry white Old Testament GOD of punishment, I’d have done a number on our randy “tribe” long ago, and would probably have made elephant tusks poisonous, to boot. But I’m not. As a consequence, y’all suffer.
Thanks for ignoring the biggest part of this issue – the geriatric side of it – it makes it so much easier to concentrate on the unimportant parts. By making assisted suicide illegal, you’ve been duped into doing the heavy lifting for the hospital syndicate.
You like to pretend that I am where this idea of limiting costs comes from, but I’m not. If you read the fine print on your insurance policies, you will discover “lifetime limits.” What do you suppose that means? It means that in order for the insurance company to protect itself from bankruptcy, it puts a limit on how much of its money you can burn through. It uses a NUMBER. Whatever that number is, that’s the amount above which, well, you’re not worth keeping alive. And no matter if it’s an insurance company or the United States government, there is a breaking point beyond which there won’t be any more money to spend. Oh, unless you advocate printing as much paper money as you want like that crazy liberal House freshwoman y’all keep attacking.
Personally, I wish the government would get out of the healthcare business completely. (Shrink government, remember?) THEN, people would HAVE to get their own insurance or do without healthcare, and THEN insurance companies, in the ABSENCE of government regulation/interference (Shrink government, remember) would set REALISTIC limits – in effect denominating the value of human life. You will find in the fullness of time that placing a dollar value on a human life is a very fiscally conservative Republican concept.
I agree that Trump’s “wall” will decrease illegal immigration. There will be fewer stupid people wandering across the Rio Grande and stumbling into where they don’t belong. In the long run, that might make grapes more expensive. Big deal. The GOP is beginning to appreciate that almost all of the illegal drugs they’ve been fussing about are coming through ports-of-entry, not across our Southern dirt border. That wall Trump wants won’t stop the smart ones. Whether their purpose is criminal or not, smart “invaders” will have little trouble getting where they want to go. Like Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, “Life finds a way.”
@George Wells: You say most drugs come through ports of entry like they have a barcode and can be traced back to origin, what you do is repeat a leftist talking point. Drugs are a consumable, aliens reproduce when over the border.
Life may find a way, we want to slow the increase, like a tourniquet, again you may be assuming we think the barrier is the cure, another talking point of the left. The bleeding must be staunched, give those on the border what they need. If the barrier isnt needed, why isnt the problem solved. Why since Reagan does the issue of illegal immigration and drug trafficking remain? If there is an over-population issue in the USA why do we need immigration? Perhaps the government not only needs to get out of health but charity as well. Providing wages for no work.we laugh at AOC for something being done right now a living wage for those unwilling to work.
@kitt #69:
BINGO! It exists because WE make it attractive. Attractive for the Mexicans to come, attractive for the drugs. Those millions of Mexicans working in the farm fields, working on roofing teams, working in restaurant sculleries and the like, they make a better wage here than they do in Mexico and they can send back a few hundred a month to help support their families. WE like it because they work for half the wage we’d have to pay to get OUR idle class half-interested in those same jobs, and WE’RE already paying those idle Americans NOT to work!
P.S. and we WANT the drugs, else we wouldn’t pay for them.
See the above answer.
BINGO! We have a DOUBLE winner!
Shrink government. It’s the only way that capitalism can function. Once you start down the path to Socialism, your population loses the incentive to do anything except excel at being dependent on your entitlement system. We see how well that’s worked.
Now, you still need some work on what is crossing the border with Mexico. Fentanyl kills more Americans than any other drug, and it’s coming from China, not Mexico, not from Mexicans here illegally in order to make it on American soil (as if doing it that way would make a lick of sense). POT is what we get a lot of from Mexico because it grows well there, and about 30% of that DOES walk into the country across essentially open borders. The AMOUNT of pot coming in won’t change if we put up that wall, though, because it will just take another route, and that’s because it isn’t Mexicans pushing it into the country, it is our appetite for the drug that is PULLING it in. But like I said, the “wall” is just a political distraction that both political parties are having fun with. It isn’t much money, as BIG GOVERNMENT goes (we want BIG GOVERNMENT, right?) and the lesson learned when a completed wall fails to stop drugs, fails to stop illegal immigrants from working here AND fails to stop illegal immigrants from occasionally breaking laws OTHER than immigration laws just won’t be that costly a lesson learned. Build it by all means. It WILL slow asylum-seekers to a trickle, but the drugs won’t dry up and the crops won’t go unpicked. Then, if you are REALLY crazy, you’ll run off the working illegals, and watch then what happens to our economy, because they ARE a significant factor therein.
@George Wells: Turn off the socialist welfare trap, you will see the cities burn. Go to the farms with green cards temporary status. Only give student loans which are backed by our tax dollars for jobs needed, else fund it on your dime. Only give colleges cash for true results.
Less government yes yes yes everything they touch turns to bleeeep.
Those employers hiring illegals have 30 days to replace or make them legal, they pay the costs, we simply cannot deport up to 35 million people no citizenship no entitlements from foodstamps to schooling.
But we are off topic with immigration crappy government designed anything.
Write the provisions into the late term abortion taking the woman out of the mix and give the child rights. It isnt the infants fault it is where it is. There are thousands of parents willing to adopt, make that easier.
@George Wells: It was great that you were in such a position to assist your friend, Ellen, as you did. But according to the standards you had set earlier, seems as if you would just have taken her to the city dump and disposed of her. Each person has to deal with these situations of life as they encounter them and as their internal feelings tell them they need to. My older brother died from alzheimers, about 2 years ago at age 78 (same as I am now) but for the last few years, he didn’t know anything. He didn’t know any of his children or grandchildren or even his wife. I’m sure if he had a choice, he wouldn’t have wanted to live that way. I think every person’s needs have a chance of being different. I do agree that government should stay out of the insurance business. All/ most medical needs can be different for everyone. Everyone has to take the route that they feel is best for the situation.
@Redteam:
Is this the same George Wells that used to post rampantly here at FA about another controversial issue?
The story of “Ellen” and the immigration position seems really, REALLY similar.
@George Wells:
So why did the question come up by the governor? He’s the one that brought up the subject of murdering a baby after it’s born (keep it comfortable until someone makes a decision as to whether they want it or not, does it have an extra toe, or too much brains for the parents, etc note: any reason they choose to apply} Yes, I certainly agree there is a huge difference in an early term abortion vs a total invalid living in a death house. But to get back to the question. IF there have only been a necessity 2 times for a post 20 week abortion, why did the subject of an after birth murder come up by the governor? Did someone say it has become a crisis situation?
@retire05: same GW? yes it is.
@Redteam:
Thanks for your compassion. As for retire05’s “”Ellen” story,” look it up if you doubt it. Her name was Ellen Rose Hill, who lived on Main Street in Bennington, NH prior to her Hancock Center decline, and you would find her residence at my home in Virginia Beach from Feb., 2015 until her death on April 28, 2017. That’s the 26 months I told you about. I have no reason to lie.
And no, I would never take someone to a dump that I had the capacity to save. I saved Ellen because I could. I can’t save the World, can’t same America, can’t save a hundred, or even ten. When my father had two massive strokes in 1979, my husband and I took him and my Mom into our home where Mom still lives to this day. Ellen was just a friend in need, and I did what I could. That sort of thing isn’t common enough, and the ranks of the nearly dead that fill our death factories are swelling year by year. Eventually they will bankrupt us. That’s something I can’t stop. All I can do is point out to you and anyone else who might listen that this is a crisis that is upon us, and that we are as yet unwilling to face. Yeah, I took advantage of FA’s Northam diatribe to interject this point, because I thought that it was at least remotely related (via cost considerations)and WAY more important. Sorry if I didn’t play by your silly rules.
As for the VA governor’s motivations, you know and I know and he knows that there was never any chance that his proposals would ever make it into Law. That wasn’t his hope. He OPENED the discussion. Likely it won’t go anywhere, even from a theoretical perspective, because the “Commonwealth” is no where near ready to face the issues that need to be faced. Not abortion issues, not geriatric issues. Now, I can’t answer for him why he chose to raise the abortion issue first instead of the geriatric one – maybe it was a bargaining strategy. Who knows. But I DO know that sooner or later we have to grow the nads to discuss these sort of issues WITHOUT foaming at the mouth, and that’s needed by BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
There is a principle in physics that things in motion tend to remain in motion, and on their original trajectory, unless acted upon by an external force. In our present situation, there are multitudes of things simultaneously headed in multitudes of wrong directions, and a terrible shortage of forces acting to correct them. The cost structure of our medical care industry is but one of many. Our social safety nets and the entitlement system they have spawned is another. Even the grace and dignity necessary for our representatives to effectively govern us collectively is bankrupt. I don’t have solutions. All I can do is point out problems WITHOUT blaming the guilty, because what good does that do?
@Redteam:
Oh, yes, the same George Wells of teen aged boys and donkey fame.
Do you still have your website where you express your hatred for straight people?
@George Wells: GW, the governor raised a murder issue, not an ‘abortion’ one. But in your discussion of bringing your friend into your home, you inserted the ‘personal’ element into the discussion. I thought from your earlier comments that your feeling is/was that if you become a cost to someone or society, you should be terminated. But by saying it was something you were able to do , or just ‘wanted’ to do takes that out and begins to muddy the water. If society’s decide that once a person can not sustain himself or becomes a burden or cost to someone else, it’s bye, bye time, then you can’t then start allowing some to let ‘personal feelings’ enter into the discussion for some but not for others, can you? Then you start to only allow rich people to live after retirement, no matter how decrepit they become, if they have the funds to pay someone. That’s why you can’t start to just allow people to ‘do what they feel is right’. Either they live til a natural death, or we just allow them to draw a yes or no straw if they want to die.
@Redteam #78:
No, I never said that. I said that the wholesale COST of artificially prolonging life was intolerable. That’s a far cry from personally helping wherever you can, and it’s a far cry from advocating murdering the elderly. I never artificially prolonged Ellen’s life. She didn’t want that, so in the end, I DIDN’T check her into a death factory. I don’t like that those factories even exist. I think that families should take charge whenever they can, and when they cannot, allowing the dying the option of assisted suicide – as opposed to taking a prolonged and painful slide into oblivion – is preferable to what we do now. You read into what I write more than what’s there.
The OTHER part of what you seem to suggest, that rich people (under my “plan”) might benefit from much better care than what poor people get is both what we already have (right now), and the exact opposite of socialized medicine – something I was not aware you were in favor of. So I’m not sure that you want to take me to task for suggesting that government get out of the healthcare business.
This doesn’t “muddy the water.” Ellen didn’t go on Medicaid, she went on “George Wells.” And when I talk about humane euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is with compassion and out of an interest in reducing suffering amongst the dying as much as the financial suffering of the people who have to pay for it.
One last point: Once you demonstrate to people that if they DON’T take care of themselves, someone else WILL, larger and larger numbers of them will do just that. The lessons of Johnson’s “Great Society” proved that, and now, like Kitt observes, if you cut off that “support,” cities will burn. Well, it’ll come to that anyway, because sooner or later the number of people working and paying taxes won’t cover the costs of all that support, never mind the cost of prolonging the lives of the nearly dead. So get ready.
@ Redteam:
Don’t quit on me now, Red. You bother to call out every detail of what I say that you misunderstand or you think is wrong, but you remain silent when one of your side posts insults that you know aren’t right.
Read Retire05’s #77 again. It was addressed to you. It contains libelous insults that I would have thought the FA webmaster would have censored, and it contains lies that Retire05 cannot substantiate. (Since I have never HAD a website, she certainly can’t produce any evidence of one, and I’ve never had relations with either teenagers or donkeys, so there could be no evidence of that, either.)
Now, if you are a man of honor – as I think you are – why the silence? Isn’t that just as bad as all of the liberals I keep hearing complaints about because THEY don’t call out THEIR own for things like fake news?