Archive for the 'Life Counts!' Category

Ha! After I read this article I came up with some of my own answers.

Understanding the pros and cons of health overhaul

Q: How many people would be covered?

A: The Senate bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65; under the House bill, it’s 96 percent.

That’s a major improvement over the 83 percent now covered, but the safety net would have holes.

Some 16 million eligible people would remain uninsured under the Senate bill and 12 million under the House bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s not counting illegal immigrants, who would not be eligible for government assistance under either bill.

We shouldn’t be counting illegals! They should be LEGAL first.

Q: Why don’t lawmakers just provide coverage for everyone?

Uh because it would cost so much even the rich couldn’t afford it.

Q: How affordable is the new middle-class coverage going to be?

A: It depends.

Most people would remain in their employer plans. Self-employed people and those working in small businesses would be able to buy coverage through a new insurance marketplace, with government subsidies available for many.

The aid is substantial for lower-income households, but drops off rapidly for the middle class.

The evil IT DEPENDS answer. Red flag. As for many people remaining on employer sponsored plans, that’s a joke! Employers will drop the benefit of health insurance and pay the fine for it because it would be cheaper. The idiots crafting this bill KNOW this. And their counting on US to crawl to them for insurance.

Q: Twenty-year-olds don’t have many health problems. Would they be required to get coverage?

A: You bet.

Unmarried children could stay on their parents’ plan until age 27 in the House bill, 26 in the Senate plan. That change would start in 2010.

20 yr olds loose freedom. And unmarried adult children will remain children, who depend upon Mommy and Daddy until they’re seriously grown up and should be fending for themselves. A generation of free loaders in the making.

Q: Older people are concerned about what’s going to happen to Medicare. Should they be?

The article explains that NOOO, old people have nothing to fear because benefits won’t be taken away. Nope. Just by reducing the fee paid to the docs is ALL that’ll happen. What happens when they have less docs? Hmm.

Besides, old people hog all the resources anyway…they are useless to society so let’s cut them loose and let’em die. It’s gonna happen. We see it already with government panels changing the game by suddenly claiming breast exams and tests aren’t necessary until a woman is 50. That’s the beginning of OLD…and hell if they kill off enough women look at all the money saved…

In 10 minutes, I’m keeping the lights on and will celebrate Human Achievement Hour. Will you do the same?

Freepers…

This made the rounds a couple months ago….I know, I know…it’s OLD. (I was cleaning up my bookmarks and found the link and decided to post it here)

I envision the world as we know it, ending this way. Make sure you watch in HD- let it buffer all the way first.

“…that come out of his butt…”

Pretty humorous campaign by Pedigree. There a few other funny ones with an ostrich, a wild boar, and a rhino. Go take a look at ‘em. They’re giving away a meal to a pet shelter for every view (up to 1 MILLION dollars worth.)

Oh, and yes… www.bisondung.net actually exists…. I look these things up so you don’t have to. Thank me later.

Looks like individual freedom and liberty continue to die in Great Britain… all in the name of saving Mother Gaia from “global warming”.. ofcourse..:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
Related Links

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

Yep. How long until the government comes down and dictates, like China, that only one child can be had per family, and all others will be aborted. For your own good, and the good of the planet. Bah. This is what global warming has come down to, in reality. It is the “Sky is Falling” cry, followed by the immediate call for the sacrifices of personal freedom and quality of life. For the greater good, ofcourse. I’d like to say they’re doing it “for the children”, but those children in the womb being forcibly aborted probably wouldn’t agree.

Also, this is a test post by Duncan to check out if he is also having techincal issues here at ARS.

Cassy @ Wizbang points out yet another example of feminism GONE WILD.

Along with the emancipation of women, sexual liberation has become very much a part of politics around the world. To the conservatives, both these issues challenge ‘family values’.

But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?

Humankind would cease to exist.

My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.

Family. Is. All. We. Have. Dumb. Bitch.

I just can’t add any commentary to this. My mouth is gaping wide open, in disgust and a loss for words. I am…speechless.

Meet my brand new, freshly born, big strong healthy grandBABAY! Mom and babe are doing verrry well, here at home. Dad is in Iraq and got to see the miracle of his son’s birth via video.

No name or other info to be given, at the request of my daughter who is an RN (Masters) and who waited til the very last moment to go to the hospital. If she had her way she would have delivered her baby herself…but the docs didn’t go for it. They said maybe next time (and she will take them up on that!) Baby weighed in at 9lbs 4oz, 22″ long. He was born at 6pm last evening and came home today around noon (Mom’s demand, not request!)

These will be the only pictures I will post of my Grandson. I’m taking the rest of the week off to tend to all of this, and it’s just great!

Love this song. Need to mellow. Can’t change anything now. What is done is done.

Demented and disabled people have a duty to die. I have written about this here several times.

SO when I read this, it was meant for a post.

The weak are the first to suffer when a society embraces a “quality of life” standard as the measure for human worth. The truth is that the strong and the rich in society are the true beneficiaries of euthanasia. Their responsibility to care for the sick and infirm is lifted when euthanasia is encouraged.

A lot of people think they have a right to die in a manner of their choosing. This may or may not be true- it is based upon personal beliefs and values. Now we have governments and a culture that encourages people to legislate death wishes- even upon those who cannot speak for themselves.

The “quality of life” rhetoric of the euthanasia movement is the same rhetoric that the Nazis embraced when they embarked on a policy of killing and sterilizing the mentally or physically handicapped. Genocide of the “defective” became the means of removing the “waste” from society. This same mindset was present in the sterilization of the mentally handicapped in the U.S. in the early 1900s. These historical examples show the end result of “quality of life” thinking. Grading lives on a scale of “quality” implies that some lives are more or less worth living than others. It is a natural step from such thinking to advocate that those unfortunate people leading “lesser lives” ought to be put out of their misery.

Uugh. Astonishingly true. We see this often in the abortion debate: A woman learns her unborn baby will have a disability; she gets “rid” of “it” to avoid the personal sacrifice of time and money such a child would require hard life such a child would live.

To just put one out of their misery is a cop out…and a form of murder. Disabled and demented, and sick and hurt people should be scared. Because their lives are being calculated against the lives of others: Costs analysis should never be part of the discussion. Ever.

Life should be valuable- not as an asset or a liability– but as a gift. A priceless gift.

A message we all need to hear, Catholic or not.

Admidst all the hot and bother of the media election circus, we all need to take a reflective break to help us refocus on the crucial issues and responsibilities entrusted to us as voters

The combination of words, photos, and music was incredibly moving. Make sure you have a box of tissues on hand before you click on the play button.

* I Kings 19:11-12

(H/T)