Kelly 2 breasts talking shite. Again.

[OkToBeTakei]

generationcedar.com/main/2013/03/abortion-disabilities-the-power-of-the-powerless.html#comments

Well today's post is about how homeschooling is amazing and everything else is crap yawn. Not mention worthy. Same shit different post.

But her previous post was about abortion, again same shit different post. The comments though are a riot of Kellystupidisms.

Commenter Laura to Kelly ( I should say 'Word Warrior' but I. Just. Can't.

What are your thoughts about the cost of it all though? By the time this baby is 1, it could very well have cost the taxpayers 3 million… and it will be government dependent forever. Every specialist it sees, there is another grand. And you are getting the bill. If it bankrupts the states, then there isn’t money to care for the other babies. There could be even more deaths. The mothers of these children will need food stamps, housing, and other government help because of the cost of having a disabled child. 10 years ago the 2yo child of a co-worker needed a heart transplant- it was a million dollars. And this girl has more problems than that… What is your opinion if they ever stop government health care? Will society pick up the bill willfully?

I scrolled with interest to see Kelly no insurance's free-healthcare is an evil socialist govt plot's reply. I figured God would probably provide at some point or she would advocate begging. cos' she's ace at that. Anyway...

Miss parsimonious in the kitchen replies

Laura,

Your comments are unfounded and unethically illogical on many levels.

Most importantly, we NEVER make a decision to kill someone based on a question of cost. The world if full of costly medical conditions; we don’t just wave a gun around and kill everyone who is a financial liability. The ethical consequences of that logic is a nightmare.

Secondly, a disabled child doesn’t necessarily cost tax payers…there are so many factors that determine what type of financial care they need/receive.

The mothers of these children do NOT necessarily need government assistance; and frankly, if we’re going to put government money anywhere, this would be the most deserving place.

Interesting. What though is a an 'unethically illogical? ' Is it the opposite of an 'ethical logic.?' Oh my, Word Warrior I think you shot a literary blank from your literary riffle ..I mean rifle.

Oh the old chestnut about killing alive people compared to abortion. Had to be there I suppose.

Disabled children do not necessarily cost tax dollars. No this is very true if every parent who cares for a disabled child is financially solvent. Kelly would so very obviously fall in to this category herself. She'd just whack another cup of rice into the chicken gunk. Beg for the other assistance she may require and pray that God would provide the necessary medical care that may be required in this circumstance.

Laura ups the stakes

t is illogical not to think how you are to going afford medical care? Poor people know that you (conservatives) want to take away their health care. it is a factor in decisions, In the case of the surrogate, she was very poor. No job, single and she has other children. And she was willing to abort- for a price- 15K. she lived off the government and the charities. You may not want to lie in reality- but money is a factor. Do you live a fantasy world where surgeons operate for free? And when Conservatives have their way with health care- hard choices about life and death will have to be made- most be wont be able to everything their families need.

Oh my.

Kelly I can't think of a good reply so I'll play my get out God card early says

Laura,

There is no point for a person like you to have this discussion with a person like me, because we hold two different world views, and those views guide our decisions. Is isn’t my “conservative†view, it’s my biblical one.

Your view allows you to make up the rules–be your own god, based on your assessment of a circumstance. This view, by the way, has caused disaster from day one. Your view allows you to kill people based on what YOU decide is best for you and others.

My view holds that God is absolutely sovereign over life–difficulties and all. My view holds that there are always other options–thousands of families who would love to adopt a special needs child if a mother can’t afford it, for example. My view believes that God is able to do miracles, that life isn’t about avoiding suffering, and that difficult circumstances DO arise, but they never give us authority over life.

In the end, if a mother is worried that she can’t afford a child, there are numerous options for her to give her baby to someone willing to take on those expenses.

Sin brings immeasurable brokenness into the world; but more sin doesn’t fix it. Ever.

Laura responds with some reality

No there are NOT numerous chances to give a disablied child to someone who can afford it. That is a lie if you ever have told one. There are more disabled child looking for homes than people willing to adopt them. Google foster child in need of homes. Go to adoption agencies websites, look at the children with special needs that don’t have a homes. And if you have a violent kid, forget about, it will grow up in a group home. You think abortion is wrong, but you ignore the root cause it. You can live in your fantasy world where everything turns out ok and there are plenty of homes for all the babies. There aren’t. Anybody can look and see that for themselves.

Kelly who can't think of a decent reply responds

And still, the fault is not in giving life to these babies. The answer isn’t killing them. I never said there were easy solutions and everything works out beautifully. We live in a fallen, sin-filled world. The consequences of that are all around. But committing more sin, more crime, more injustice to try to “fix†it? That’s irrational and evil.

Laura

Perhaps the mothers worry that the next time a conservative president is in office he will take away their healthcare and they will not be able to afford medical care for the disabled child or their other children. It is not an easy situation, hard choices have to be made. I do not envy these women.

Kelly I still have no proper medical insurance responds

Laura,

You seem to assume all these people are poor and can’t afford health insurance. The couple in the second example paid for in vitro fertilization on top of a hefty surrogate fee; your examples are full of assumption.

And still the fact remains: difficult circumstances doesn’t ever justify crime (abortion is a legalized crime). If someone broke into your house and stole your life’s savings, should they be defended on the basis of their difficult circumstances?

Killing people never really solves another problem. And even if it does, it shouldn’t be justified on that basis.

Well there you go. Thank the LAWD she explained it so clearly to me. Also is she advocating shooting the thief? Hard to be sure with her logic.

Laura then later chimes in

If you paid the money- then you had the money. Some people never have money and never will. When someone who has 3 teeth in their mouth, smokes weed daily, and takes 3 buses to get to their min wage job, it is not a good thing for them to be pregnant. They will never contribute to the medical bills. Things might have been tight for you, but you could do it. So many can’t.

Actually Kelly would I think be just as much a drain on socialised healthcare if one of her blessings required millions of dollars of medical care as I have a serious doubt that Samaritan would stretch. But that is neither here nor there. It is as much her right as it is everyone else. The fact that in this circumstance she advocates FOR healthcare to prove her point is funny. OH wait ..no. She kind of did, then flip-flopped to say that people were able to pay for it.

Anyway she ran out of answers and asked Laura what any of this had to do with the sanctity of life. Basically she copped out.

Hilarious.

[VooDooChild]

How the hell does taking away public assistance that provides much needed care and support for many of God's creatures not have anything to do with the sanctity of life , Kelly?

[Burris]

I agree with Kelly insofar as I believe money shouldn't be any sort of deciding factor in whether or not to offer appropriate medical supports to someone with a disability. But Laura is correct: That money doesn't just appear; it has to come from somewhere, whether it be the state, a private insurer, the community, or individual funds.

And it is not cheap.

My husband was born with a fairly serious disability. He required multiple surgeries and, as a result of the condition, broke nearly every bone in his body more than once. Even when he was a kid, that would have cost massive amounts of money – and taxpayers gave it over.

These last six months with my husband in the hospital, most of the time in ICU – I can't even imagine what the bill for that would be. Because he has a preexisting condition, US private insurers would not have covered him. Canada has public healthcare, and the bill to taxpayers for this must be at least a million dollars. There's just no way it could be less.

And even though public healthcare covers nearly everything, and my husband has insurance through work that covers nearly everything else, I have paid over $4000 out-of-pocket in the last six months for things such as co-pays, back-up parts, ambulance bills, monitoring devices he needs but that aren't covered (such as a pulse-oximeter), ingredients for cooking proper saline, and other incidentals...

Today – this very day – I'm handing out $1600 for a backpack concentrator, a wedge so my husband can sleep at the medically recommended 40 degree incline when he gets home, and a mattress for his side of the bed that prevents pressure sores because his skin deteriorates so quickly.

So we are out, conservatively, $5600 when we have public healthcare and an insurance plan that covers 95% of what healthcare will not. It's simply staggering: We'd be bankrupt and still in debt for the rest of our lives in a private system.

My husband works, pays taxes, and even if he didn't his life is worth more than mere money – but the money still has to come from somewhere, Kelly. And if we had left it up to God, alone, rather than trusting those whom God has guided towards medicine, then my husband would have died of internal bleeding three months ago. No – actually, he would have died of influenza and pneumonia six months ago. Actually, no; he would have died from a staph infection that ate at one of his bones after a surgery when he was ten. Actually, no; he would have died shortly after birth, full stop. Other people – staggering numbers; countless numbers – of other people have worked consistently since the day my husband was born not only to keep him alive but to offer a quality of life.

Four years ago, an arm of the system here helped cover the cost of a power wheelchair for my husband, whose elbow joints had broken and deteriorated to the point where he could no longer push his manual chair. Our portion: $500. Theirs: $9000.

When my husband comes home, it will be with a ventilator paid for and maintained by socialized healthcare. We might have been able to pay for that ourselves, if making payments, but we could never afford to have a pulmonolgist on-call who actually comes to our house to ensure my husband isn't over-burdened with CO2 in his blood, or Respiratory Therapists who come once a week, and then once a month to change his trach.

He has been approved as an outpatient for several months of physiotherapy – a bill we could never cover.

I walked around more-or-less whole and cost our own system next to nothing, so I guess it would have been easy for my parents to pretend as Kelly does (yet they didn't); but my husband's parents never had that luxury of pretense.

And now I cost the system here as well, in appointments with an ophthalmologist every two years to ensure my damaged vision is stable and I don't develop glaucoma or something else. My glasses cost $600. The appointment must cost a lot more, but I don't see the bill; fellow taxpayers share it.

So while I'm not crazy about the state holding everything as community property, which is not the case in Canada, I'm grateful for a socialized medical system.

Kelly is being deliberately dense. Instead of actually answering Laura's legitimate fears about how a child with disabilities would survive without a social safety net in a place where most parents don't have a spare million in the bank, Kelly plays the “separate worldviews†card and acts as if Laura is advocating for euthanasia when she is not.

Believing life is priceless but also that living is costly – these ideas are inclusive.

How does a working class family living in the United States pay for the care of a child with disabilities if there is no social safety net? If they are uninsured at any point after the child is born, they may never be able to insure their child again. And when that child becomes an adult, rather than a cute and cuddly object of slobbering sympathy, then who would cover his needs? Who would help cover *more* than his needs, so that he could live in the community instead of behind the walls of some institution somewhere?

[formergothardite]

It is always amusing when people like Kelly claim there are ways to support children in need without the government and then won't say what their grand plan is. Not everyone wants to starve their children while waiting for "god to provide".

[OkToBeTakei]

Burris wrote

How does a working class family living in the United States pay for the care of a child with disabilities if there is no social safety net? If they are uninsured at any point after the child is born, they may never be able to insure their child again. And when that child becomes an adult, rather than a cute and cuddly object of slobbering sympathy, then who would cover his needs? Who would help cover *more* than his needs, so that he could live in the community instead of behind the walls of some institution somewhere?

Burris, I am fairly sure Kelly believes God will make sure she never has to find out. She is sitting in a position where she feels she can preach some moral higher way of living with out having the experience or knowledge of what she is talking about. She does not even have the intelligence to try and find any facts to back up her narrow-minded view. If in your position though, I suspect Kelly would be preaching that it is her 'biblical' right to receive any socialised healthcare as she did not 'kill' her 'extra special' blessing from God. I sincerely doubt being grateful for a socialised healthcare system based on the fact that it is not a divine intervention, it is just a socialised healthcare system would enter her vacuous head, nor would being grateful for it warts and all, as are most citizens who benefit from it.

Best wishes to your husband.

[notsocommon]

How the hell does taking away public assistance that provides much needed care and support for many of God's creatures not have anything to do with the sanctity of life , Kelly?

Life is only 'santified' when it is unborn. After that? Notsomuch.

[Burris]

Burris, I am fairly sure Kelly believes God will make sure she never has to find out. She is sitting in a position where she feels she can preach some moral higher way of living with out having the experience or knowledge of what she is talking about. She does not even have the intelligence to try and find any facts to back up her narrow-minded view. If in your position though, I suspect Kelly would be preaching that it is her 'biblical' right to receive any socialised healthcare as she did not 'kill' her 'extra special' blessing from God.

I have no doubt you're correct.

I sincerely doubt being grateful for a socialised healthcare system based on the fact that it is not a divine intervention, it is just a socialised healthcare system would enter her vacuous head, nor would being grateful for it warts and all, as are most citizens who benefit from it.

I wouldn't wish illness on Kelly or her family, but it would be nice if a thought borrowed its way through her thick skull and lodged in her vacuous brain every now and again. People help people whether there is a God or not.

Best wishes to your husband.

His lungs are damaged but he will eventually be able to return to work, and then to camping and fishing other activities he enjoys. He'll be able to do these things again because so many people helped make it possible. Whether with divine help or not, people did these things and are still doing them.

I cannot even begin to express the unspeakable gratitude I feel for all that help - especially since I also know what can happen without it.

Kelly believes in the infinite grace of God that preserves even the worst people against the fates they deserve, and yet she doesn't believe that grace should have practical applications beyond whatever miserly pittance she and her family are willing to give to only the noblest of recipients.

ETA: I know there are some people on this board who believe fetuses with disabilities such as the one my husband has should be aborted for what they think are humanitarian reasons. All I can say to that is if such technology had existed when my husband or I were in utero, the test would have found his genetic defect but nothing wrong with me. Of the two of us, however, his contributions are significantly greater than whatever loss people around him incurred in paying for his treatment. That is a brag I'll never be able to make. Nothing would have detected what either of us would become.

Nothing would have detected that here was a noble man in the womb whom everyone respects and likes for his spirit. The world would be poorer without him.

[VooDooChild]

Burris, I am fairly sure Kelly believes God will make sure she never has to find out. She is sitting in a position where she feels she can preach some moral higher way of living with out having the experience or knowledge of what she is talking about. She does not even have the intelligence to try and find any facts to back up her narrow-minded view. If in your position though, I suspect Kelly would be preaching that it is her 'biblical' right to receive any socialised healthcare as she did not 'kill' her 'extra special' blessing from God. I sincerely doubt being grateful for a socialised healthcare system based on the fact that it is not a divine intervention, it is just a socialised healthcare system would enter her vacuous head, nor would being grateful for it warts and all, as are most citizens who benefit from it.

Best wishes to your husband.

Then by that logic, others would have a right to healthcare because they didn't kill their snowflake either. But I get it. This is Kelly who lacks any sense and can't see past the end of her own nose.

Life is only 'santified' when it is unborn. After that? Notsomuch.

Of course! Whatever was I thinking!

And Burris,

My best wishes to you and your husband.

[slickcat79]

OF COURSE there are options for this child beyond depending on taxpayer money. Clearly her parents should start a monetized blog and begin begging for donations ASAP. Kelly could give them some pointers.

Also wondering what "unethically illogical" is supposed to mean. You could argue the ethics of Laura's position, but I think she is speaking in a logical fashion. Word Warrior...not so much :?

[Burris]

And Burris,

My best wishes to you and your husband.

I know it might sound like I'm bitching, but I'm not. My husband is coming home next week. I'm elated! I've been looking forward to this weekend of spending for months. It finishes the long process of collecting the tools he needs.

Then he comes home and nothing will happen for about a week, while we sit around watching movies and doing exercises, and then he starts physio - which means he'll likely regain even more physical strength then had had before the initial incident.

This is literally and actually one of the happiest days of my life.

OF COURSE there are options for this child beyond depending on taxpayer money. Clearly her parents should start a monetized blog and begin begging for donations ASAP. Kelly could give them some pointers.

Also wondering what "unethically illogical" is supposed to mean. You could argue the ethics of Laura's position, but I think she is speaking in a logical fashion. Word Warrior...not so much :?

I actually felt bad for her when the tornado hit, and understood her asking for donations, but then she - in the midst of that chaos - started bragging about all the shiny new shit she was getting (while others had no homes still) - and then finally there was a picture of a heart-shaped tornado and I actually wanted to kick her ass.

[Sobeknofret]

I know it might sound like I'm bitching, but I'm not. My husband is coming home next week. I'm elated! I've been looking forward to this weekend of spending for months. It finishes the long process of collecting the tools he needs.

Then he comes home and nothing will happen for about a week, while we sit around watching movies and doing exercises, and then he starts physio - which means he'll likely regain even more physical strength then had had before the initial incident.

This is literally and actually one of the happiest days of my life.

I am so pleased for you and your husband! I will send my strongest mojo for his continued improvement.

[Talitha Cumi]

My view holds that there are always other options–thousands of families who would love to adopt a special needs child if a mother can’t afford it, for example.

LOL FOREVER. Kelly, you don't have a view. You painted a window on your wall and called it a view.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I think people (read: Kelly) just have no idea just how fast and how high medical expenses (or other disaster expenses) build up. They talk about living thrifty and putting aside pin money and not paying for cable TV, but in the face of SERIOUS medical help that you need for years, it's not remotely in the same league. Losing everything you have in a disaster, similarly.

Saving and being thrifty is a noble goal, I won't deny that. But some things are simply too large for individual families to budget for, EVER, and that is why we have communal assistance schemes and insurance of various kinds, including national insurance. The entire point is monetary redistribution and spreading wealth where it's needed. You don't need it? You're lucky, feel grateful, and pay your contributions.

Meanwhile I wonder how Kelly would respond to the hypothetical "should people be forced to donate a kidney?" question, re: abortion.

Hope everything continues to go the best it can for Burris' husband, including that the movies are good :)

[slickcat79]

The mothers of these children do NOT necessarily need government assistance; and frankly, if we’re going to put government money anywhere, this would be the most deserving place.

I hope someone remembers this little gem for the next time Kelly's ranting about lazy freeloaders who shouldn't be taking government handouts for their kids because they could just feed them some rice and chicken puree, or take them to the vet when they're sick, or whatever the fuck.

[Drina Adams]

I hope someone remembers this little gem for the next time Kelly's ranting about lazy freeloaders who shouldn't be taking government handouts for their kids because they could just feed them some rice and chicken puree, or take them to the vet when they're sick, or whatever the fuck.

Someone needs a screenshot before she scrubs it.

[lilwriter85]

It is always amusing when people like Kelly claim there are ways to support children in need without the government and then won't say what their grand plan is. Not everyone wants to starve their children while waiting for "god to provide".

Other fundies will say that support for children in need should come from private charities/foundations and churches. Private charities and churches can only do so much. Some private charities and foundations that focus on helping people with disabilities have strict limits on who gets assistance and how much assistance they receive. I took a grant writing class in college and my instructor had served on a several boards for foundations. He said that the goal of many private charities/foundations is to help give some relief to people in need. The boards, officers, and founders of charities/foundations know they can't completely solve problems for adults and children in need, they focus on alleviating their situations a bit.

I've been following the a blog of a couple whose son has Down Syndrome. This couple has insurance but they have encountered problems here and there. They have received assistance from private foundations a few times. A private foundation recently gave them an iPad for their son to use for therapies. This couple knows that private foundations can only do so much and they admit to getting to government assistance when there aren't other alternatives. Their little boy was in a speech therapy and he had stop for awhile because they maxed out the numbers of sessions that the insurance company would pay for. The wife ended up getting a grant from the county she lives in to put the boy back in speech therapy. I bet Kelly and other fundies would flip out at the idea of taxpayer money paying for speech therapy for a child in need.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Life is only 'santified' when it is unborn. After that? Notsomuch.

Or as the late, great George Carlin put it, "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked."

Burris, I wish your husband nothing but the best. I'm so glad he'll be with you soon.

Medical bills can devastate a person. Even a simple trip to the ER can ramp up medical bills that an individual can never hope to pay off. Our healthcare system here in the states is truly broken. I worked for insurance companies, in hospital administration departments, and I also worked for a healthcare business consulting company so I have a bit more insight on how the system is fucked up and destroying individuals, families, communities, businesses, etc.

Kelly needs to read Steven Brill's very thorough, well-researched, eye-opening, and mind blowing article "Bitter Pill" in the March 4th issue of Time magazine. Mr. Brill should win a Pulitzer for this article.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/b ... -main-belt

[docmom]

I have a child with an extremely expensive condition. With treatment he is absolutely fine. No-one would ever know there was anything wrong with him. He's smart, funny and will, I hope, make a real contribution to society. My husband and I are both physicians and we make a reasonable income, but without our medical insurance we COULD NOT afford our son's medications. This isn't a short term expense either. This is something he'll need for the rest of his life. Kelly has no clue what real disability looks like or just how expensive it can be. Would she advocate that un or underinsured children like my son not be treated? If she's against government assistance then she is. If she believes this then she's obviously fine with a child being in excruiating pain and dying young. I treat a lot of people in my practice with very expensive medical conditions and I've seen families ruined by the expense. Our system is fucked up. Almost all they physicians I work with would welcome a single payer, government run system in this country- but we're a bunch of academic liberal types :D

[RachelB]

I know it might sound like I'm bitching, but I'm not. My husband is coming home next week. I'm elated! I've been looking forward to this weekend of spending for months. It finishes the long process of collecting the tools he needs.

Then he comes home and nothing will happen for about a week, while we sit around watching movies and doing exercises, and then he starts physio - which means he'll likely regain even more physical strength then had had before the initial incident.

This is literally and actually one of the happiest days of my life.

I actually felt bad for her when the tornado hit, and understood her asking for donations, but then she - in the midst of that chaos - started bragging about all the shiny new shit she was getting (while others had no homes still) - and then finally there was a picture of a heart-shaped tornado and I actually wanted to kick her ass.

I'm so glad he's coming home, Burris. I wish him continued healing, and my thoughts are with you both.

[Coconut Flan]

I also hope all goes well with your husband's homecoming and he ends up stronger than before.

[Minerva]

Most importantly, we NEVER make a decision to kill someone based on a question of cost.

We just cut off people's benefits and look away as they die from poverty and a lack of healthcare.

[Lillybee]

We just cut off people's benefits and look away as they die from poverty and a lack of healthcare.

Exactly, we have had at least two homeless men die in my small city because the only shelter kicked them out after they stayed there for their thirty days.

[jenny_islander]

To the poster who wondered how U.S. families manage to care for critically ill or impaired children:

They destroy themselves financially. They give up the hope of financial independence in old age; they can't put away money for retirement if the child needs it now. They destroy their credit ratings, without which it is impossible to get loans for major purchases or home repairs--or jobs; yes, even jobs that don't involve handling money increasingly require credit checks these days. They pile up credit card debt that they will never be able to repay. Sometimes they have to stay with jobs that have worse prospects than they could otherwise hope for, because they can't find jobs that offer similar health insurance starting out . . . then eventually they hit the lifetime caps on their ill child's insurance benefits (although I understand Obamacare has done something about that) . . . and this assumes that the child wasn't "risked out" for having a "preexisting condition" in the first place (although I understand that Obamacare has done something about that too).

They destroy themselves physically. They neglect their own health to care for the ill child. They don't go to the doctor for themselves because they can't afford even a reasonable copay and deductible for themselves; every cent has to go to the child. They take on second jobs, or they come home from their paid jobs to start a second shift as unpaid and untrained caregivers because there is no money to pay a professional and insurance seldom if ever covers this cost anywhere near as long or as often as needed. They sacrifice sleep. They eat cheap, nutrient-poor food in order to pay for the child's medication.

They destroy themselves emotionally. They have to beg, beg, beg for money all the time. I understand that in some countries parents don't have to put their children's photos on empty mayonnaise jars at grocery store cash registers in order to pay the oncologist--not that this ever really pays the oncologist; it just slows the inevitable descent into poverty. They have to pour so much of their time and attention into the ill child, since paid help is out of the question except for the rich, that the other children tend to be neglected. They may work opposite shifts so somebody is always at home, but they can seldom just sit and talk as a couple, so the marriage suffers.

Having a seriously ill or impaired child can drag a whole family into poverty and break up a household. All because socialism is such a dirty word here.

ETA: As I'm sure you've noticed, the same people who scream about socialism invading and making us . . . all live without fear of dying due to lack of money, which is somehow . . . evil . . . or something, I dunno--anyway, they also like to rant and rave about lazy poors living high on the government hog. So you not only go down in the slow-motion landslide of poverty in order to save your child's life and/or keep her out of an underfunded institution, but you also get rocks thrown at you all the way down.

[Effie]

I hope someone remembers this little gem for the next time Kelly's ranting about lazy freeloaders who shouldn't be taking government handouts for their kids because they could just feed them some rice and chicken puree, or take them to the vet when they're sick, or whatever the fuck.

Remember, this is coming from the same Kelly, who denied there was any poverty in U.S. just 4 years ago.

"(By the way, we haven’t even gotten to “under developed countriesâ€â€¦we’re just talking about America, where, by most of the world’s estimation, there is no poverty. So that kind of blows a whole in your poverty theory. -generationcedar.com/main/2009/01/our-culture-of-death-makes-way-for-life.html

I guess she is doing some kind of progress after all. Just give her 40 more years and she might actually start giving to charity!

[GolightlyGrrl]

To the poster who wondered how U.S. families manage to care for critically ill or impaired children:

They destroy themselves financially. They give up the hope of financial independence in old age; they can't put away money for retirement if the child needs it now. They destroy their credit ratings, without which it is impossible to get loans for major purchases or home repairs--or jobs; yes, even jobs that don't involve handling money increasingly require credit checks these days. They pile up credit card debt that they will never be able to repay. Sometimes they have to stay with jobs that have worse prospects than they could otherwise hope for, because they can't find jobs that offer similar health insurance starting out . . . then eventually they hit the lifetime caps on their ill child's insurance benefits (although I understand Obamacare has done something about that) . . . and this assumes that the child wasn't "risked out" for having a "preexisting condition" in the first place (although I understand that Obamacare has done something about that too).

They destroy themselves physically. They neglect their own health to care for the ill child. They don't go to the doctor for themselves because they can't afford even a reasonable copay and deductible for themselves; every cent has to go to the child. They take on second jobs, or they come home from their paid jobs to start a second shift as unpaid and untrained caregivers because there is no money to pay a professional and insurance seldom if ever covers this cost anywhere near as long or as often as needed. They sacrifice sleep. They eat cheap, nutrient-poor food in order to pay for the child's medication.

They destroy themselves emotionally. They have to beg, beg, beg for money all the time. I understand that in some countries parents don't have to put their children's photos on empty mayonnaise jars at grocery store cash registers in order to pay the oncologist--not that this ever really pays the oncologist; it just slows the inevitable descent into poverty. They have to pour so much of their time and attention into the ill child, since paid help is out of the question except for the rich, that the other children tend to be neglected. They may work opposite shifts so somebody is always at home, but they can seldom just sit and talk as a couple, so the marriage suffers.

Having a seriously ill or impaired child can drag a whole family into poverty and break up a household. All because socialism is such a dirty word here.

ETA: As I'm sure you've noticed, the same people who scream about socialism invading and making us . . . all live without fear of dying due to lack of money, which is somehow . . . evil . . . or something, I dunno--anyway, they also like to rant and rave about lazy poors living high on the government hog. So you not only go down in the slow-motion landslide of poverty in order to save your child's life and/or keep her out of an underfunded institution, but you also get rocks thrown at you all the way down.

You should try posting this at Kelly 2 Breast's blog. But she'd probably delete it or try to rebuke you with some fake "Biblical" shit.