Planned Parenthood
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
rod
Retired 23 years
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Hate to break it to you but you are a mass of cells.
I'm guessing that you've never heard of St Jude's hospital. The simple fact is that insurance isn't a factor for getting health care for a life threatening condition. That was a weak red herring fallacy.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
There's an abortion clinic that was on a route I used to run. 90% plus of the protesters were women. They would get in their knees in the middle of a busy road and impede traffic and hold up graphic signs. That's subjective just like suggesting the one must be whacky to bomb or murder a doctor.
Men commit murder more than women. That's a sociological issue and doesn't support a claim for or against the abortion protester.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1635092/
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Absolutely ZERO. They can't be brought into anyone's home, adopted, or given a good LIFE because their LIFE was ended before being given that opportunity.
Those homeless people had the choice to LIVE on the street because they weren't aborted before growing up.
You people are sick.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Our foster care system is loaded with children looking for a permanent home. Put your money where your mouths are and take them into your lives. Seems most adoptions are parents looking for the perfect little white kid and the rest be damned.
You are saying that ALL life should be given the opportunity to live. Yet you support a needless war where we slaughter many innocents. Guess it's ok with you that we let them be born before we kill them?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So you are waging war on children?
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
IDK, who are the REAL wackos?
A) the women that want to kill their fetus.
B) the abortion clinicd killing hundreds of fetuses.
C) the protesters outside try to save the lives of the unborn.
You would pick group C as the wackos.
You and I must have a different definition of the word WACKOS.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I do not need to put my mouth or money anywhere. I do not condone killing babies simply because the mother and/or father doesn't want them. Any war you mention has no place in this conversation other than to distract from the fact that you support killing babies and "donating " their flesh and bones simply because someone didn't want them. You sick and twisted boy.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
They sure are collecting a lot of human body parts from this "mass of cells"
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths, Study Shows
MEDIA CONTACT: Ekaterina Pesheva
PHONE: (410) 502-9433
October 29, 2009
Lead investigator Fizan Abdullah, M.D., Ph.D., is a pediatric surgeon at Hopkins Children's
Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, the study, published Oct. 29 in theJournal of Public Health, is one of the largest ever to look at the impact of insurance on the number of preventable deaths and the potential for saved lives among sick children in the United States.
Using more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005, the Johns Hopkins investigators compared the risk of death in children with insurance and in those without. Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance. When comparing death rates by underlying disease, the uninsured appeared to have increased risk of dying independent regardless of their medical condition, the study found. The findings only capture deaths during hospitalization and do not reflect deaths after discharge from the hospital, nor do they count children who died without ever being hospitalized, the researchers say, which means the real death toll of non-insurance could be even higher.
"If you are a child without insurance, if you're seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next room who has insurance," says lead investigator Fizan Abdullah, M.D., Ph.D., a pediatric surgeon at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.
The researchers caution that the study looked at hospital records after the fact of death so they cannot directly establish cause and effect between health insurance and risk of dying. However because of the volume of records analyzed and because of the researchers' ability to identify and eliminate most factors that typically cloud such research, the analysis shows a powerful link between health insurance and risk of dying, they say.
"Can we say with absolute certainty that 17,000 children would have been saved if they had health insurance? Of course not," says co-investigator David Chang, Ph.D. M.P.H. M.B.A. "The point here is that a substantial number of children may be saved by health coverage."
"From a scientific perspective, we are confident in our finding that thousands of children likely did die because they lacked insurance or because of factors directly related to lack of insurance," he adds.
Given that more than 7 million American children in the United States remain uninsured amidst this nation's struggle with health-care reform, researchers say policymakers and, indeed, society as a whole should pay heed to their findings.
"Thousands of children die needlessly each year because we lack a health system that provides them health insurance. This should not be," says co-investigator Peter Pronovost, M.D., Ph.D., director of Critical Care Medicine at Johns Hopkins and medical director of the Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care. "In a country as wealthy as ours, the need to provide health insurance to the millions of children who lack it is a moral, not an economic issue," he adds.
In the study, 104,520 patients died (0.47 percent) out of 22.2 million insured hospitalized children, compared to 9, 468 (0.75 percent) who died among the 1.2 million uninsured ones. To find out what portion of these deaths would have been prevented by health insurance, researchers performed a statistical simulation by projecting the expected number of deaths for insured patients based on the severity of their medical conditions among other factors, and then applied this expected number of deaths to the uninsured group.
In the uninsured group, there were 3,535 more deaths than expected, not explained by disease severity or other factors. Going a step further and applying the excess number of deaths to the total number of pediatric hospitalizations in the United States (117 million) for the study period, the researchers found an excess of 16,787 deaths among the nearly six million uninsured children who ended up in the hospital during that time.
Other findings from the study:
- More uninsured children were seen in hospitals in the Northeast and Midwest than in the South and West. However, hospitals from the Northeast had lower mortality rates than hospitals from the South, Midwest and West.
- Insured children on average incurred higher hospital charges than uninsured children, most likely explained by the fact that uninsured children tend to present to the hospital at more advanced stages of their disease, which in turn gives doctors less chance for intervention and treatment, especially in terminal cases, investigators say.
- Uninsured patients were more likely to seek treatment though the Emergency Room, rather than through a referral by a doctor, likely markers of more advanced disease stage and/or delays in seeking medical attention.
- Insurance status did not affect how long a child spent overall in the hospital.
Co-investigators in the study include Yiyi Zhang, M.H.S.; Thomas Lardaro, B.S.; Marissa Black; Paul Colombani, M.D.; Kristin Chrouser, M.D. M.P.H.
Guess St Judes doesn't do enough.
bleedinbrown58
That’s Craptacular
How many weeks after conception does the embryo have a detectable heartbeat? If it has a heartbeat, it is a living thing. And thus, capable of being killed. I don't know if I'd go so fa as to call an abortion "murder". But if faced with the choice myself, I'm not sure I could go thorough with aborting an unplanned pregnancy.
rod
Retired 23 years
we do
rod
Retired 23 years
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
But your ok with forcing an unwanted child into this world and once their born, deny them subsidised health insurance to possibly save that life during childhood.
That seems twisted to me.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jud... jude&ef_id=UdNY2gAAAHpriVGc:20150715213452:s
Not only is ability to pay not a factor they will put your family in housing while the child is given some of the best health care available.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
So killing them is the answer?
