Just last week I wrote about Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, and her valid concern that infant son Gunner would receive inadequate care under nationalized health care.
This morning Kristan made a compelling case during a Fox interview:
For more information go to healthcareforgunner.com.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The “10 years less in Ireland” life expectancy figure she mentions is discredited on her own website:
“A recent article in the Irish Times lambasted the Irish government for “failing in their duty to care to vulnerable citizens” and calling it a “public scandal.” The article cites the lack of facilities and life expectancy rate, which is 10 years less than counterpart CF patients in the U.K. or the U.S.”
She doesn’t mention the UK nod on TV because the UK has nationalized health care (which they spend a smaller part of their GDP on, compared to the US). Also, could the fact that Ireland has the highest incidence rate of cystic fibrosis play a part in the reduction in life expectancy rates?
If we are to turn this issue into a pro-life issue, then I’ll ask this – what about the children of people who can’t afford health insurance on their own? There are a lot of children (and adults) who die needlessly in the US each year, either because they do not have health care coverage or because they do, but have lost it because…
HEALTH CARE COMPANIES IN THE US PLACE A PRICE ON HUMAN LIFE
We say we don’t support that, but its true. Having a for-profit health care system allows for these corporate entities to place a dollar amount on human life.
You want get a decent answer. Nice try though.
I’ve yet to see a republican plan.
I mean, think about it, on one side you have a muilti-trillion dollar industry lobbying for something and, on the other, you have people just trying to make sure everyone has insurance W/O HAVING TO GO BANKRUPT TO PAY FOR IT.
So, who is gonna win the fight?
Don’t worry though, if it is defeated, the liberal blogosphere will be sure to “paintball” the repubs, as they should be. Basically, they aren’t working for you, they are working for an insurance lobbying firm. Sounds like a “pimp and hoe” relationship to me.
It’s on Faux also..lol
Jerry Springer of news networks (High ratings – no substance)
I had a huge argument with my brother about this. He (of course) sited the WHO statistics that say the US has the lowest life expectancy of several government run healthcare countries. Conveniently leaving out the fact that the WHO includes homicide and accidental death in those numbers. (If those two are taken out we have the greatest life expectancy.)
He also said, and I quote, no one is stopping her from paying out of pocket for her son. I laughed because he didn’t complain when his insurance was paying for his Acutane, something I doubt the government would do.
PS Soonerman could be my brother for all I know… ;)
Would someone please provide me a link to the republican plan for Insurance reform?
Be sure and eat and drink plenty of water, cause you are not gonna find one, even after searching the internets for days…
So, while they say, we need insurance reform, their plan is to oppose the President. That’s a sound plan for sure!
oh, and lower taxes and lawsuit reform…
Insurance companies still get record profits. We (all of us in the US) still get to subsidize the worlds prescription drugs by paying outrageous prices for drugs. An insurance beaurocrat is still in the conversation with your doctor on your health decisions and will even say “NO”.
It’s all good though! After all, what’s more republican than being able to make a buck off of someone elses misery. (See Iraq)
Now, that’s some “PRO-LIFE” thinking for ya.
This woman is a moron and a pawn. Nobody is calling for nationalizing health care in the US. If she likes her health insurance, she can keep it. All the Democrats want to do is make insurance companies more competitive, stop them from dumping sick people and refusing to cover sick people, and create more options for the 50 million people who have no health insurance with an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies.
When health care reform passes, this woman’s child will have a better chance of survival, because insurance will be cheaper, and insurance companies won’t be allowed to deny coverage for his pre-existing condition anymore.
The US health care reform bills look nothing like the UK, nothing like Ireland, nothing like Canada. So this woman’s complaints about Ireland are completely irrelevant.
Oh come now reality, we all know that a health care system based completely on $$$ is the best option and the MOST PRO-LIFE!
We all know that the goal of those who want insurance reform is really just to insure that people like her son get swept under the rug.
It’s a foregone conclusion that the insurance industry would deal with her family honestly and with integrity on addressing and paying claims, once she met her deductable.
And, finally, we all know that on Faux tells the truth and fairly represents both sides of the issue. This interview is a perfect example. I mean the lady representing the otherside of the debate was so good in voicing her concerns, she was almost invisible.
Come on man! Get with the PRO-LIFE program here.
Life and cash are like Jack and Jill.
Curses to that evil President of ours for trying to get access to healthcare for everyone! He’s so controlled by Satan.
Thank God for the christianly insurance industry and their missionaries, the republicans. They always pay their claims. They never deny claims. They always tell the truth. They always agree with the docter of the patient and spare no expense in making sure that you are provided the proper medical care that you need. They are so Godly and Pro-Life.
How dare you even have “pro-life” in your name!
Yes, surely disrupting completely the existing system which insures 250 million Americans currently and 70% of those when asked said that their coverage was above and beyond expectation…CERTAINLY messing that up to help cover the 50 million uninsured (give or take 10-15 million illegal aliens) by forcing small businesses to pay for insurance they can’t afford, or forcing families to opt in on insurance they can’t afford (and I wonder how much insurance companies will have to raise their prices to cover the cost of all the people who will bail out on the insurance policies they used to offer those 250 million who are currently insured?)…Of course more government will only make this horribly flawed system better, right?
I mean, when car insurance became mandatory, it’s not like prices went up or anything, right?
Maybe Republicans are not offering some huge plan because some huge plan is not needed. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. Certain restrictions that are in place now must be lifted, and certain things that are not regulated now should be, but it doesn’t take some huge and costly overhaul plan to do this.
I’m still reading the bill, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t blame Gunner’s parents or any parents of a special needs child for being concerned.
PLA, children who are in the US legally usually qualify for health care entitlements even if their parents don’t. There will always be a “price” on human life, the only difference is that the feds set the price under the proposed bill.
Soonerman, the Republican’s health care proposal is called the Patients’ Choice Act of 2009. Just google that phrase and the top link takes you to a summary of their proposal.
You are grossly misrepresenting the reform bill currently in congress to state that it’s only about covering everyone with insurance. It’s also about reforming health care delivery in a way that puts the government in the middle of health care decisions that are presently made between a patient and his physician.
If she likes her health insurance, she can keep it. All the Democrats want to do is make insurance companies more competitive
Posted by: reality at July 20, 2009 7:29 PM
True, she can keep it. Unless it goes out of business because the government fails to select that private insurance plan as “qualified” to participate in the new health insurance exchange. The bill gives the government the authority to select which private insurance plans are allowed to enroll new members after the legislation goes into effect. They can force any private insurance company they choose to go bankrupt due to attrition by disallowing new member enrollments. That’s hardly competition. Nice spin though.
Have the Dems even shown their plan yet? I heard somewhere that getting a copy was like pulling teeth. I would think Dems would be so proud of it, Nancy Pelosi would pin the copy to her shirt and parade around Washington with it, or have Biden stick his hand-drawn crayon version to the White House fridge, at least.
I know Plastic-hair McGee (Mitt Romney) was really super-stoked about his, and I heard it’s just working out smashingly over there in MA.
xalisae, if I post a live link, this post won’t get approved. If you google America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 you can find a copy of the bill to download.
Thanks a ton, Fed Up. :D
The only “health care” reform that should be made is allowing a 100% tax deduction for all health and wellness expenses from dollar ONE.
The self employed and people who buy individual coverage get screwed because they can only deduct costs that exceed 7% of AGI.
Included fitness club dues in the wellness tax deduction.
This plan would treat all Americans the same rather than only allows those who work for other the advantage of dollar one tax deductible health care.
But democrats will never support such a plan because it does not increase the size and scope of government and decrease personal freedom like their current plan does.
I fear for babies like Gunner under BO care. They will be deemed not economical to repair. They will, at first, be wait-listed to death. Later, they will not even be allow to take their first breath. This shall come to pass if American voters do not change their course for them with the 2010 elections.
I fear for them too, Mark, but I don’t think they’ll be “wait-listed.” The bill gives the government options to get very intrusive.
BTW, I agree with you about relaxing deductions for health expenses.
Large-Scale Study Compares Health Insurance Experiences, Attitudes, and Beliefs of People with Genetic Conditions vs. People with Other Serious Medical Conditions
February 12, 2007–A new study published in the February 2007 issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics reveals that individuals with genetic conditions are twice as likely to report having been denied health insurance than individuals with other chronic illnesses.
The Johns Hopkins University study also found that nearly 60 percent of all study participants believe a health insurance company can obtain medical information about them without their permission. Researchers conducted in-depth, personal interviews of 597 adults for the project, believed to be the first large-scale study to systematically compare and contrast the health insurance experiences, attitudes, and beliefs of persons with genetic conditions versus individuals with other serious medical conditions. Respondents (or their children) had sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, or HIV.
“Anyone with chronic medical conditions should be legitimately concerned about access to health insurance, but individuals with genetic conditions may have additional reasons to worry,?? said principal investigator Nancy Kass, ScD, deputy director for public health at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We learned that there is considerable concern about being denied health insurance because of a genetic condition, as well as maintaining some privacy about the status of that condition.??
In the study, more than a quarter (27 percent) of individuals with genetic conditions and serious medical conditions reported having been denied health insurance or offered it at a prohibitive rate. Further, those with genetic conditions were twice as likely to report having been denied health insurance or offered it at a prohibitive rate than individuals with other medical conditions. Individuals with genetic conditions were also more likely to report that their insurance company had limited the coverage related specifically to their condition than did individuals interviewed who had other types of medical conditions (23.5 percent vs. 14.2 percent).
Almost all of the individuals in the study (89.7 percent) said they obtained their health insurance through either their employer (59.4 percent) or their spouse’s employer (30.8 percent). Nearly half of employed individuals (48.9 percent) said they felt they could not leave their jobs because they would lose their health insurance. Individuals with genetic conditions were also more likely to report trying to obtain additional health insurance compared to individuals with other serious medical conditions. Only 67.2 percent of these individuals reported success in obtaining additional health insurance.
In other findings, individuals with HIV were most likely to believe that (68 percent vs. 49 percent overall) that healthcare providers would not send specific test results to health insurance companies if asked not to.
At the federal level, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes discrimination against persons with disabilities which includes those with genetically-related conditions. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) expressly forbids a group health insurance plan from using genetic information to establish rules for eligibility or continued eligibility. HIPAA also prohibits insurance companies from treating genetic information as a “pre-existing condition in the absence of the diagnosis of the condition related to such information.?? Individuals cannot be denied health care coverage for a medical condition as a result of a genetic marker for the condition. However, individuals can be denied if they have symptoms of genetic disease. As such, HIPAA provides no protection for the vast majority of respondents in the new study.
“As we spoke to family after family, it became clear that people with all types of medical conditions are quite worried about access to health insurance and make life changes in order to preserve their access to it,?? added Kass. “But people with genetic conditions may face additional challenges, an area that is worth further examination. Bioethicists are problem-finders, and we found a big one.??
For purposes of the study, the research team identified individuals with single genetic disorders as having either cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. Individuals classified in the study as having other chronic illnesses were persons with diabetes, HIV, breast cancer, or colon cancer. A small number of individuals with a strong family history of breast cancer or colon cancer were considered “at risk,?? and were also classified as persons with chronic illnesses.
The new study is one of the first large-scale research projects to gather systematic data from individuals documenting their actual experiences. The project was supported by a grant from the National Institute for Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health. Study participants enrolled from March 1996 to February 2000, and ranged in age from 18 to 64. The project team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Georgetown University.
This woman is a moron and a pawn.
Posted by: reality at July 20, 2009 7:29 PM
reality, are you familiar with the Mayo Clinic? You know, the place PBHO has praised as a health care system that does things right? Do you think they are pawns and morons at Mayo?
Check out their blog.
healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/mayo-clinic%E2%80%99s-reaction-to-house-tri-committee-bill/
Mayo says, “…the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.”
As for your 10:13pm post, you seem to make the conclusion that the insurance industry is synonymous with the health care delivery system in the US. It isn’t. Problems can be addressed with insurance companies without screwing up the delivery of health care for all Americans. But that’s not what the Dems want. They want government control over the delivery of health care services, not simply paid access to health care services for the uninsured.
bottomline is this:
There will be no health reform. You guys are right on your pro-fetus stances but WRONG on healthcare.
Making a buck off of people’s misery is wrong.
I read the Patience Free choice act 2009. Great! Where’s the bill? Why did republicans introduce it now instead of 8 years ago when they had control? Think about it!
It’s great rhetoric but, I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that if God came down and put repubs and power, the Patience Free Choice Act of 2009, would end up in an archive collecting dusts.
X says:
“Yes, surely disrupting completely the existing system which insures 250 million Americans currently and 70% of those when asked said that their coverage was above and beyond expectation…CERTAINLY messing that up to help cover the 50 million uninsured (give or take 10-15 million illegal aliens) by forcing small businesses to pay for insurance they can’t afford, or forcing families to opt in on insurance they can’t afford (and I wonder how much insurance companies will have to raise their prices to cover the cost of all the people who will bail out on the insurance policies they used to offer those 250 million who are currently insured?)…Of course more government will only make this horribly flawed system better, right?”
Nice statistics, got a link? Or, is this just some talk radio Mumbo Jumbo?
So, you are willing to sacrifice 35 million for the benefit of the greater? You sure you are Pro-Life?
All I here from repubs and conservatives is…”yeah, it’s broken but we can’t do this or we shouldn’t do that?” “Well, what should we do?”
Substance…not rhetoric!
The sad part is you guys actually believe that your insurance company has your best interest in mind…lol.
Well, I’m glad that you’re insured. I hope you don’t have a pro-longed illness. Then again, republicans didn’t make it too hard to file for bankruptcy. So, it might not be that bad.
Here’s some Dem Facts for you:
Although, it might be flawed, (and I cannot disprove or prove either way as I have no time to read 1018 page legal document), credit THOSE PESKY LIBERALS for trying to do something about the problem. (Not a nice utopian summary i.e. Patience Free Choice Act of 2009? but, an actual bill..actual legistlation.)
Actions…not words. That’s leadership.
I read the Patience Free choice act 2009. Great! Where’s the bill? Why did republicans introduce it now instead of 8 years ago when they had control? Think about it!
It was introduced several months ago but I believe the Dems blocked it from getting out of committee. What was going on 8 years ago? Ummm, 9/11. The fact remains that the plan is out there now but Dems seem to prefer their plan to CONTROL health care rather than improving access and quality of care.
The sad part is you guys actually believe that your insurance company has your best interest in mind…lol.
The thing with private insurance companies is that there is an appeals process if payment for desired care is denied. I have yet to see an appeals process in the bill, but I’m still reading. As I said to you on the other thread, insurance companies make payment decisions but don’t have authority to deny care. That’s not the case with the bill, where the feds will have a say in both payment and decisions about patient care.
Nice statistics, got a link?
american.com/archive/datapoint-entries/healthcare
So, you are willing to sacrifice 35 million for the benefit of the greater?
Who’s talking about sacrificing 35 million? Those who are uninsured can and DO access essential health care services. Do a little research on the amount of bad debt and charity care that hospitals write off every year!
You seem oblivious to the fact that millions of people will remain uninsured even if this bill passes. Millions of illegals won’t be covered but will continue to access the system. It’s impossible to estimate how many people who are eligible for insurance will choose to pay the penalty over buying insurance. Or how many who are eligible for programs like Medicaid will persist in their refusal to enroll in them.
Are you not concerned about the millions of people who presently have private health insurance but are at risk of losing it under the new health insurance exchange? If you’re privately insured, this bill may cause you to lose it when the feds impose new restrictions on your insurance carrier.
Certainly there are many people who cannot afford health insurance or have lost/been denied coverage. I would like to see legislation that focuses on how to best help these people. The current bill changes health care for everyone, including those who are satisfied with their coverage. It’s not necessary to change health care for every citizen unless you believe the government should interfere in every doctor-patient relationship.
Actions…not words. That’s leadership.
Leadership or power grab? This bill changes health care for everyone under the guise of insuring the uninsured. As you pointed out, this problem has festered for a long time. Why must the bill be passed in the next few weeks? It’s not like it goes into effect immediately. Why not give the public a chance to find out what’s in the bill so they can let their legislators know their opinions?
And why did congress vote down an amendment requiring them to enroll in the public plan? If they won’t subject themselves to it, don’t expect me to give any credence to their talking points. If it’s not good enough for their families, why should I believe it’s good enough for the rest of the country?
We can do much better than this bill. If the knuckleheads in Washington would merge what’s good in both parties’ proposals, we’d be in much better shape.
Statistics = start by googling “statistics healthcare are insured”
First result is the CDC.
the 50 million was actually a high estimate, they say 43.6 million.
That’s just for starters, of course.
Someone in charge should consider the needs of the many, contributing to the greater good of the nation (as I would hope each individual considers things, but I all too often find that the reality is far off from my ideal), and to me it seems like putting out everyone else for only roughly 15% of Americans is foolish. (This is the same root problem that causes other problems like abortion. “MY wants, MY needs, ME ME ME ME! Damn my baby! DAMN anyone else!” This leads to things like this attempt at socialized medicine. “MY healthcare, MY wants, MY needs! DAMN the country! DAMN our economy!” Selfish children seem to be running our nation. Sad, really.)
“Well, I’m glad that you’re insured. I hope you don’t have a pro-longed illness.”
Actually, currently I’m NOT insured, since my husband just left the military. We’ll be TEMPORARILY using state benefits for our children (which do just fine, thanks.) until my upcoming interview yields a job so that I can either obtain benefits through my job or start shopping around for my own plan, because (say it with me, now):
JUST BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S OR ANYONE ELSE’S JOB TO OBTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ME.
I do not blame anyone, republican or democrat, for my lack of health insurance. I do not think it is a sin to be temporarily uninsured. I will seek and find my own insurance if I obtain employment that hasn’t explored those options for me, but I do not think it should be legally required for them to furnish me with health insurance, as I would rather have the job in the first place than the insurance I will get because of the job instead. Requiring an employer to furnish me with health insurance by law could possibly make the job I seek become cost prohibitive. How do you not see this? How can people live their lives thinking that it is SOMEONE ELSE’S responsibility to make sure THEY have the things that THEY need? If the survival of my family depended upon charity, I would seek it out, but it wouldn’t be something I’d demand publicly or feel entitled to, that’s for certain.
“The sad part is you guys actually believe that your insurance company has your best interest in mind”
No, actually, I think they are a business, and trying to make money, just like everyone else in this society, myself included.
Reforming the system (limiting frivolous lawsuits-which by the way, your guy John Edwards actually specialized in canyousay”partoftheproblemnotthesolution?”, checking costs and contracts) then analyzing costs vs. price of services to determine profits and who is getting them, and THEN setting up price caps if you need them because prices don’t drop when profits go up past a certain point is the answer. If your car needs an oil change, you don’t scrap the car. Same thing should be done with military spending. Contracts with buddies of politicians and buddies of businessmen are killing this country. Contracts are supposed to go to the LOWEST bidder, not the person who can jack up the price the most but who is friends with senator so-and-so and a faithful campaign contributor. Glen Beck should be appointed the freaking ethics overseer with the ability to prosecute conflict of interest cases. He’s really very good at connecting the dots.
“That’s leadership.”
Yeah…right off a cliff.
It amazes me that people think there is no help for uninsured or underinsured people. I’ve said before that I had a very expensive ER visit and then a prolonged hospital stay while I wasn’t insured. I didn’t pay a dime. The government paid the bill in total, and that was 18 years ago. Programs like these have only increased in the time since then.
My insurance currently doesn’t cover well child visits or immunizations (this is coverage from a school district mind you.) But guess what? Instead of having to pay $130+ per shot at my doctors office I can go to the county (and I can make an appointment so I don’t have to wait in line) and pay $15.00 a shot. My last pediatrician (who retired) even had a government plan at his office so I didn’t even have to go to the county, I could pay the $15.00 and get them in his office.
People are lazy and stupid if they can’t do a little research.
BTW – I had a friend who needed her gallbladder out. At first her insurance denied it but after her doctor talked to them they approved it. Do you REALLY think the government would do that? It would be a bureaucratic mess.
Kristen,
I agree. There have been times we haven’t had any insurance. We found a way to get the care we needed even if it meant payments of $20 a month to pay the medical bill. Catholic Charities was a godsend. I paid $500 for maternal care and delivery of my last baby.
Posted by: soonerman at July 20, 2009 6:42 PM
“Sounds like a “pimp and hoe” relationship to me.”
—————————————————–
sooooooooooonerman/mam
Which one would you be, the ‘pimp’ or the ‘ho’?
(By the way a ‘hoe’ is something the first lady uses to work in her white house garden.)
Not to be confused with the ms lewinski who ‘ho’ed around the oval office. I am not sure who was the bigger ‘ho’, her or ‘slick willy’.
(I am not referring to Cathleen ‘Willy’, just one of serial sexual assaulter in chief’s train of victims, but to the former bubba in charge himself.)
yor bro ken
Why is it that currently, cigarettes are heavily taxed, and tax money can pay for school programs to discourage kids from smoking cancer sticks, but Planned Parenthood gets plenty of tax money to teach kids about all of their cancer-causing options?
How about taxing products that increase the risk of getting cancer? How about funding organizations like The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and cutting national and international funding for organizations whose procedures and programs actually increase the risk of Breast cancer? How about funding abstinence-only programs?