Republican Death Panels Strike Again: This time on a baby

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 5:44 AM GMT
    The Medicaid and Social Services departments of Indiana (run by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels) is going to allow an infant to die rather than pay for a lifesaving treatment.

    HuffingtonPostSeth Petreikis is a six-month-old baby trying to dodge a death sentence.

    s-PETREIKIS-large.jpg

    He was born in Dyer, Indiana earlier this year with a rare and usually fatal condition called complete DiGeorge syndrome. A genetic malfunction on his 22nd chromosome kept him from developing a thymus, an organ that helps develop white blood cells, and led him to have serious heart defects.

    As such, he's susceptible to overwhelming infections, and the heart surgery he'll need in February will be impossible without making him dangerously vulnerable to such infection. "It's like he's been sentenced to death," his mother, Becky Petreikis, told the Northwest Indiana Times.

    Indeed, babies born with complete DiGeorge are unlikely to see their first birthday, and almost never survive past the age of two.

    The one possibility of commuting that sentence: a radical transplant procedure pioneered by a specialist at Duke Hospital in Durham, NC.

    But unless something changes, and soon, his family won't be able to pay for the procedure in time to save Seth's life. Despite his parents' pleas and appeals, Indiana Medicaid won't cover the operation, and neither will the state's Family Social Services Administration (FSSA).


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/seth-petreikis-baby-with-_n_793950.html
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 09, 2010 11:48 AM GMT
    More living in the republican reality

    ...... argue for less government and deficit reduction
    when you bloat both of them when you're in power

    ....... and here you see the reality of the true death panels where money dictates whether you live or die
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 3:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidYep. And you think Federal bureaucrats will be any different?

    Government (at any level) should not be involved with health care decisions.



    No one is saying government should be involved in health care decisions, but in this case, the parents cannot afford this life saving treatment and the state will not pay for it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 8:22 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYep. And you think Federal bureaucrats will be any different?

    Government (at any level) should not be involved with health care decisions.



    No one is saying government should be involved in health care decisions, but in this case, the parents cannot afford this life saving treatment and the state will not pay for it.



    And that is the problem of everyone else because? There are a lot of families everywhere who can't afford to pay for life saving treatment for their loved ones, so what are they going to do? Should we extend coverage to the rest of the world in the name of alleviating human suffering?

    The real issue here is that people should be donating money to help this family. It's about creating awareness and helping others in our community. You always want to bring the government in it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 8:28 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYep. And you think Federal bureaucrats will be any different?

    Government (at any level) should not be involved with health care decisions.



    No one is saying government should be involved in health care decisions, but in this case, the parents cannot afford this life saving treatment and the state will not pay for it.



    And that is the problem of everyone else because? There are a lot of families everywhere who can't afford to pay for life saving treatment for their loved ones, so what are they going to do? Should we extend coverage to the rest of the world in the name of alleviating human suffering?

    The real issue here is that people should be donating money to help this family. It's about creating awareness and helping others in our community. You always want to bring the government in it.


    You're lack of knowledge regarding fundraising is eclipsed only by your lack of knowledge about CRA. While I empathize with the rest of the world, it's not America's job (despite Neocon protestations to the contrary) to police or take care of the world. But it is our job to take care of our fellow citizens and when the private sector (whether for-profit or non-profit) fails, the government must step in.

    Tell me, would you rather $500,000 of our taxes go to saving this child's life or to pay for four Blackwater mercenaries to murder Afghanis?

    Beyond the issue of how much money is taxed and spent, there is the moral question of what it is spent on.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Dec 09, 2010 8:58 PM GMT
    It's obviously more important to make sure this kid didn't have a circumcision forced on him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 9:01 PM GMT
    Timberoo saidIt's obviously more important to make sure this kid didn't have a circumcision forced on him.

    WHAT???