Health and Human Services Denies Girl, 10, Lung Transplant

This story is about  a ten year old girl named Sarah Murnaghan. Sarah's situation is terribly unfortunate. I hope that her parents get to see her grow old, but her chances are slim due to a federal law denying her the transplant that she needs because of her age.

"...under FEDERAL rules, children younger than 12 are not prioritized for adult organs".

So regardless that it's a FEDERAL rule, not insurance, blocking this girl from getting the transplant, "Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has told Sarah’s parents she’s not authorized to intervene".

Read more: http://wgntv.com/2013/06/03/parents-of-girl-in-need-of-lung-transplant-she-has-essentially-been-left-to-die/#ixzz2VDT2Xp3h

The story can also be found here,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kathleen-sebelius-review-children-lung-transplants-article-1.1361028

and here,

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/family-hhs-sebelius-intervene-10-year-olds-lung/story?id=19309530#.Ua1mfuCSITM

Please, for multiple reasons, spread this story.

A Conversation With a Liberal

A Conversation With a Liberal 

This is a recent conversation between myself and a friend. I will update it if there are any relevant responses. His initial response was to a link that I shared:

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

Mike 1:Interesting. He disclaims the evidence released supporting the decreases and then uses a completely different matrix to support his wish that these rate decreases are actually increases - talk about comparing apples to oranges! Clearly this writer has never tried to purchase individual health insurance if he thinks there's any kind of "robust free market" in play.

Mike 2: I can't wait to be forced by our government to buy their service.

Mike 1: Michael, which service are you speaking? Police, fire, roads, armed forces, ? Schools, libraries, state university? Because those are government services you are forced to pay for. It's the way government works.

Mike 2: Yeah...which is precisely the problem...the government is much too large, the people no longer have the power. All those said services could be better provided under a voluntaryist society. If it ain't broke don't fix it...well it's broken....it's in fact shattered.

Mike 1: And the more we defund the government the worse it gets. There is a glowing example of what I'm advocating: the United States of America from world war II until Bush II. There is a glowing example of what you're advocating: Somalia.Our freely elected American government is our greatest ally in the defense against the greed of corporations and special interests. The more we decry government and try to equate our freely elected system with some totalitarian fiction the more we play into the hands of corporations that will pollute us, sell us insurance and deny all claims, let our society devolve into some gun toting 3rd world anarchy.

Mike 2: That may be true if you view politicians as the enlightened ones. The problem stems deeper down to what we are educating our population with. We start with the ground up. Reform schools, teach kids true history, not to repeat it and instill progressive non threatening attitudes. The problem is that we repeat history over and over. The definition of insanity if doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Why would you want to go BACK in time? Because you existed then? The economy is better than it is now? Of course. There is an optimal society, it's about education and progression.

NJ Front: Clearly, you guys have touched on a lot of talking points, but if we can go back for a minute... I've never understood how healthcare is comparable to "police, fire, roads, armed forces, schools, libraries, and state university." Just because those previously mentioned government services people are forced to pay for are common, does not necessitate my mandatory financial contribution to a national program I am going to get NOTHING back from. I do not have a problem paying taxes to support the necessary function of local services such as the those programs you mentioned, but keep in mind that I use those services to some extent. On the contrary, I do not get to use other people's health insurance, yet I am going to (mandatorily) be paying more because of the "Affordable" Care Act. But we already passed on something we glazed over. Why do state universities get extra state funding while they inflate tuition prices? Why are we at the point where state college is becoming more of a financial burden when we have more people paying taxes then ever before, we have higher tuition prices than ever before all the while state universities get state funding, federal funding and not to mention private funding. That is a perfect example of a good thing gone wrong. There is simply too much bureaucracy; too many statesmen who get another reason to tax people who are already taxed too much and too many overpaid teachers and administrators who get more just for passing time (keep in mind I am talking strictly about universities and colleges.) But you talk about the "greed of corporations and special interests", and I wonder why can't that same ideology pertain to government? Don't you think that government has special interests and greedy polictians? There have been countless news article outlining the degree of bankruptcy concerning Social Security. While I will never understand the "thoughtfulness" of taking my money to either give it back to me later or to someone else, politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have been borrowing from it for decades. Is there any answer you can offer me that can even remotely addresses the "liberty" in taking my money against my will? Is there ever a point where you can say, "OK, that's enough government"? If so, when?

Mike: I don't know if I have time to respond thoughtfully to all the great questions you brought up, but I'll try to give you some of my thoughts. I think as a people we have decided that for-profit police, fire, and education (k-12) are not desirable. It would be savage and unkind to only protect the people in our community that can afford police or fire protection. And no one is advocating that poor kids just get kicked out of school because their parents can't afford it. By protecting the poor and educating the young, we are a better society and live in a better country. It's not necessarily fair that the rich have to pay more for the same public education, but it's generally accepted that we do this for our society. Social security is hugely popular and is well funded and growing. Most Americans prefer to have the intrusion of this tax in return for some safety net in our old age and especially happy that we don't have to stumble over hundreds of elderly homeless people that are taken care of. I think, on the other hand we feel comfortable if free market principles are allowed to drive car markets. No one feels horrible if a poor person can't drive a new Mercedes or fly to distant destinations on every holiday. Health care is something I feel we should endeavor to protect from greedy corporations that take your money and then choose to drop you when you get sick or don't cover life saving procedures because the government isn't strong enough to make them. It's unseemly that a child with cancer is denied coverage based on someone's profit margin. There is a fine article about Obamacare referenced in the article you have linked to. It's an article based on real data. The article you linked above is based on the author's perusal of Esurance.com! Yes there can be a point where you can say "enough is enough" but with our infrastructure failing, our veterans benefits being reduced and more and more seniors and young children being left in harm's way, you have to explain to me why we should continue to cut taxes, increase the burden on the middle class, and encourage the growing disparity between rich and poor? This our government - it is ours to do with as we please. The notion that the absence of a government - or a weakened one would leave us more free is fantasy. Where the government cedes its power to act on the people's behalf, private companies, or warlords will fill the gaps and make taxes and control our lives without us having the benefit of representation.

NJ Front: Thanks for replying. I know that it's a lot to cover and we might not get a chance to get into everything that we'd like. Having said that, I think all of this needs to be talked about more often and amongst more people, so kudos for us... You mention something interesting right off the bat when you wrote, "we have decided that for-profit police, fire, and education (k-12) are not desirable." I am not sure where that accusation comes from. Out of all the public services you just mentioned, all of them have extremely high paying jobs for tenured employees and very good salaries for most starting positions. I think we, as a nation, are at a point where we are simply running out of money for all of the "extras" that go along with those positions. As the most successful capitalist society, we have been able to get away with paying for certain things we had, but not longer have the money for. One of those things are the pensions certain public employees get. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure why anyone, aside from combat veterans/families, gets a pension. Most retired Americans have to live off retirement money/401K (in addition to SS), but for some reason public employees get pensions. If you want to analyze a similar situation on the university level, look at all of the sports coaches who literally make millions of dollars coaching at state schools. Talk about needing to find a better way to use public funds! I am not even making an argument against wealthier people paying for poorer children to attend school, as long as it's on a local level. That will usually be the case since wealthier people always pay more in taxes. What I am saying is this is the fiscal abuse that comes from having too many bureaucratic hands in our pockets. You also wrote, "By protecting the poor and educating the young, we are a better society and live in a better country." At face value, sure, but it's never actually that simple. For years, we have been giving more to poor areas, for you and me, that would be areas such as Camden, Newark, etc. Those areas have been getting funding on the state and federal levels, yet they are still sinking. People in those areas have a higher than average percentage of welfare recipients, unemployment, and students with test scores far below the national average. But believe it or not, those are the areas with most of the federal funding, so why is there still a problem? The immediate problem is not fiscal, but internal. It is because we are neglecting the simple, universal concept of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and feed him for life."  Plenty of the cities that have successfully enforced fiscal funding concepts from public housing to food stamps, have been destroyed from the inside out, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles. Just think of all the people who were caught using EBT cards in casinos out West. You can give people with problems all of the money in the world, but you're not necessarily stopping the root of the problem. Just because you give a homeless man a few bucks, doesn't mean he is more likely to buy food rather than alcohol. "Most Americans prefer to have the intrusion of this tax in return for some safety net in our old age..." All tax paying Americans do not have a choice about paying into SS, so I don't think you can use the word "prefer", but why can't SS be voluntary? I am recently out of college with loans to pay all the while saving up to hopefully move out and move on with my life, but then the government decides, "Oh no, sorry, we have another great mandatory tax, ah hem, service for you". I have never subscribed to the idea that government spends my money better than I do. I could explain to you why we should continue to cut taxes, but I wasn't aware we were doing such a thing. This past January, my taxes went way up and I am in a lower tax bracket, Obama said that wouldn't, but it did. That was a burden on me, less money for bills and less money to save. What I don't understand is how tax cuts across the board increase the burden on the middle class. "The notion that the absence of a government - or a weakened one would leave us more free is fantasy". I am in no way advocating for a "weaker" government, but a more efficient one where tax money is not wasted on people who get to set their own salaries, exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act and give it to people who need real help, like rehab. I'd like to see the First Lady pass up having Adele and Beyonce at her birthday party when they are blaming sequestration problems on Republicans. If people are taught personal responsibility rather than just how to file for government checks, we'd be on our way to "protecting the poor and educating the young." "Where the government cedes its power to act on the people's behalf, private companies, or warlords will fill the gaps and make taxes and control our lives without us having the benefit of representation." I'm not sure where warlords came from, maybe it's because we refuse to enforce our boarder laws, but isn't making taxes and controlling my life by forcing me to purchase services what the government already does? Call it what you want, a private company or a warlord, but if I don't have a say about part of my money that I earned, then I do not have representation. Honestly, people on this side of the government, like you and me, have more in common than we think. We have very similar ideas of a civil society, regardless if we have different ways of achieving them. The problems will always be with those with the power and the more money you give them, the more power they have. 

Mike 1: The notion that we're "running out of money" is curious because the rich are much richer than they've ever been. The disparity of wealth is at an all time high. What we've done as a society over the past 15 years is redistribute the wealth away from the middle class. The rich are not spending the money they have saved. Put that money into the middle class and it will go immediately back into the economy.

END