REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Kathleen Sebelius won’t waive regulation for girl with five weeks to live: ‘Someone lives and someone dies’

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Friday, June 14, 2013 16:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3740
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 11:56 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta on behalf of a girl who needs a lung transplant but can’t get one because of a federal regulation that prevents her from qualifying for a transplant.

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Barletta, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she currently qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2531097?slideout=1

Unavoidable, Govt. bureaucrat says some live and some die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:07 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Tough break, kid.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:07 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta on behalf of a girl who needs a lung transplant but can’t get one because of a federal regulation that prevents her from qualifying for a transplant.

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Barletta, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she currently qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2531097?slideout=1

Unavoidable, Govt. bureaucrat says some live and some die.



You can't even read what you post. Medical evidence and transplant doctors make the rules. there is a difference between pediatric and adult lungs.

Jerk

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:27 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta on behalf of a girl who needs a lung transplant but can’t get one because of a federal regulation that prevents her from qualifying for a transplant.

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Barletta, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she currently qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2531097?slideout=1

Unavoidable, Govt. bureaucrat says some live and some die.



You can't even read what you post. Medical evidence and transplant doctors make the rules. there is a difference between pediatric and adult lungs.

Jerk


You failed to read the article which I sampled.

"Barletta countered that medical professionals think Murneghan could survive an adult lung transplant. During the exchange, he also said that the girl has three to five weeks to live."

I did provide the link. But if posting a portion of an article makes me a "jerk", then what are you for not reading the actual article before you comment?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 7:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I read the article. Did you note that 40 people are waiting for lung transplants? That is why someone lives and someone dies. Not because Kathleen Sebelius is an evil bitch.

Your partisan undies are showing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:10 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Righties using a sick child to score political points against Obama's healthcare plan.

Quote:



Republicans’ latest attack on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius involves not the health care law, but a child dying of cystic fibrosis.

GOP members are pressuring the secretary to make Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old who has been hospitalized at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for three months with end-stage disease, eligible to receive a transplant of adult lungs. Her family has gone very public in seeking an exemption because few pediatric lungs become available and the child is running out of time.



Sebelius, who would need to intervene in decisions made by a transplant panel, told a House panel Tuesday morning that she has spoken with Sarah’s mother and “can’t imagine anything more difficult.” But she also said it isn’t her job to pick and choose.

“I can’t imagine anything worse than one individual getting to pick who lives and who dies,” she said. Sebelius said putting Sarah next in line would disadvantage other young people who have also been waiting for transplants — three of them at the same hospital.

“Unfortunately, there are about 40 seriously ill Pennsylvanians over the age of 12 also waiting for a lung transplant,” she said.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network sets policies for transplants, working with the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing to maintain waiting lists and implement the standards. Under their current policies, those under the age of 12 are considered separately from adults. That means an adult lung will be given to an adult candidate if one exists. Murnaghan is at the top of the list to receive a pediatric lung, but pediatric donors are much more rare.

Sebelius said HHS lawyers disagree with Republicans who insist she can take emergency action. Instead of personally intervening, she has ordered a review of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s policy.

But Republicans — from Pennsylvania and other states — insist she intervene. “It simply takes your signature,” said Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.). “A study will take over a year — this young lady will be dead.”

“Why are we going to let a little 10-year-old girl die because she is 10 and not 12,” said Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.). “Please suspend the rules until we look at this policy [that] we all believe is flawed. … We do so much bullcrap around this place and we have the chance to save someone’s life.”

Sen. Pat Toomey and Rep. Patrick Meehan, both Pennsylvania Republicans, wrote to Sebelius on Monday, asking her to reconsider.

“You have the ability and the authority to intervene to allow for Sarah and other children under the age of 12 to become eligible for adult organs,” they wrote.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-murnaghan-lung-transplant-
kathleen-sebelius-92198.html#ixzz2VJpl81c0


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Righties using a sick child to score political points against Obama's healthcare plan.

Quote:



Republicans’ latest attack on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius involves not the health care law, but a child dying of cystic fibrosis.



So your cite says that's not so.



Does seem that the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network could have policies that consider more than an arbitrary age limit when considering whether children could get adult lungs, rather than having to wait for pediatric lungs. Possibly consider stuff like size of the child, severity of the need, etc.

You know, it really does sound sort'a like a "death panel". ;<)


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:29 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Sounds like their beef should be the The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

Quote:


The U.S. Congress established the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) when it enacted the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984. The act called for a unified transplant network to be operated by a private, non-profit organization under federal contract.

Following further study and recommendations from a task force commissioned through NOTA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) solicited proposals in 1986 for the operation of the OPTN.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) was awarded the initial OPTN contract on September 30, 1986, and has continued to administer the OPTN more than 16 years and four successive contract renewals.

Effective March 16, 2000, HHS implemented a Final Rule establishing a regulatory framework for the structure and operations of the OPTN.



Established in 1984 under a Regean administration and NOTHING to do with Obama or his health care plans.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Sounds like their beef should be the The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

Quote:


The U.S. Congress established the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) when it enacted the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984. The act called for a unified transplant network to be operated by a private, non-profit organization under federal contract.

Following further study and recommendations from a task force commissioned through NOTA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) solicited proposals in 1986 for the operation of the OPTN.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) was awarded the initial OPTN contract on September 30, 1986, and has continued to administer the OPTN more than 16 years and four successive contract renewals.

Effective March 16, 2000, HHS implemented a Final Rule establishing a regulatory framework for the structure and operations of the OPTN.



Established in 1984 under a Regean administration and NOTHING to do with Obama or his health care plans.



Well, Ive pointed out that it has nothing to do with the ACA, citing your previous post. Not sure why you're trying to make this ACA-related when it's just about overly rigid rules for who gets transplants.

Also note from your cite above that it was HHS that set up and regulates the OPTN (based on a Congressional mandate), so you'd kind'a expect that if folks want the OPTN to change their regulations, or want an exception to the current regulations on an emergency basis, they'd ask the Secretary of HHS.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:26 AM

JONGSSTRAW


A beautiful, high-spirited little girl with just a few weeks to live can't get any sympathy or special consideration by the non-human gargoyles who have the power to save her. Nope, they say wait your turn behind the adults who have already lived life including those that chose to smoke. Nope, Kathleen Sebelius won't bend a rule for a desperate 10 year-old girl. She just sentences her to death with a smile as she scurries along to her next meeting. In Sebelius' screwed-up head, she likely believes the girl is already way ahead of the game anyhow, having not been aborted before birth.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, Ive pointed out that it has nothing to do with the ACA, citing your previous post. Not sure why you're trying to make this ACA-related when it's just about overly rigid rules for who gets transplants.

Also note from your cite above that it was HHS that set up and regulates the OPTN (based on a Congressional mandate), so you'd kind'a expect that if folks want the OPTN to change their regulations, or want an exception to the current regulations on an emergency basis, they'd ask the Secretary of HHS.



So why is this newsworthy? Why has it been turned into a partisan issue? You yourself referred to death panels and jongs make references to heartless bureacratics making determinations about life or death.

Seems those decisions go on regardless of the medical system. It's called triage and its heartbreaking to be involved in it. Precisely what Sebelius's quote means, "if the kidney goes to the girl, someone else dies" not the apathetic cruelty that she is being painted with.

Who knows what medical state this girl is in. Sometimes a transplant fails because it is the wrong fit for the person, because someone is too ill, too likely to die anyway. Who knows. I know that the regulations were created by doctors, most likely to avoid scenarios like these where this is a bun fight over limited organs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:38 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A beautiful, high-spirited little girl with just a few weeks to live can't get any sympathy or special consideration by the non-human gargoyles who have the power to save her. Nope, they say wait your turn behind the adults who have already lived life including those that chose to smoke. Nope, Kathleen Sebelius won't bend a rule for a desperate 10 year-old girl. She just sentences her to death with a smile as she scurries along to her next meeting. In Sebelius' screwed-up head, she likely believes the girl is already way ahead of the game anyhow, having not been aborted before birth.



Oh spare me the pathetic hand wringing. I don't believe your grief. You are point scoring once again.

Where was your outrage when Tea party supporters chanted 'let them die' regarding uninsured patients in need of life saving treatments. Under a far right government, many would be left without treatment and would die, because of their own twisted ideology regarding user pays. Would you prefer who can pay the most for the lungs to be a better way of determining? After all free market forces are the most important consideration in the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A beautiful, high-spirited little girl with just a few weeks to live can't get any sympathy or special consideration by the non-human gargoyles who have the power to save her. Nope, they say wait your turn behind the adults who have already lived life including those that chose to smoke. Nope, Kathleen Sebelius won't bend a rule for a desperate 10 year-old girl. She just sentences her to death with a smile as she scurries along to her next meeting. In Sebelius' screwed-up head, she likely believes the girl is already way ahead of the game anyhow, having not been aborted before birth.



Oh spare me the pathetic hand wringing. I don't believe your grief. You are point scoring once again.

Where was your outrage when Tea party supporters chanted 'let them die' regarding uninsured patients in need of life saving treatments. Under a far right government, many would be left without treatment and would die, because of their own twisted ideology regarding user pays. Would you prefer who can pay the most for the lungs to be a better way of determining? After all free market forces are the most important consideration in the world.



1 person shouted that out, in a town hall meeting, as I recall. Not the ENTIRE TEA party, as you're trying to point score, w/ your comment.

And this isn't about govt paid care, is it ? All this girl is asking for is to be put on the list, given a chance , and not sentenced to die, due to some arbitrary, bureaucratic guide line, which can be waived, with a stroke of the pen. ( You know, like how waivers were given on ObamaCare, for all those Left wing groups and companies who donated large cash to Obama and the DNC ? )

Sebelius really is one morally bankrupt witch, and there's no 2 ways around it.

*UPDATE*

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-murnaghan-lung-transplant-
ruling-kathleen-sebelius-92299.html#ixzz2VNz2r5au


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:24 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

*UPDATE*

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.


Yes, great news today. Sarah now has at least a chance to live thanks to that judge. I will pray that her opportunity for the organ transplant comes soon enough to save her life. If it doesn't, at least other children and their parents in the future won't have to face hopelessness because of antiquated age discrimination policies.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



She'll likely not last a week. She'll pass, and this will all be forgotten. The heartless Alliance suck ups will carry on about the 'faux' sympathy for this young girl, and then go on defending this bureaucratic night mare they've elected.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor

1 person shouted that out, in a town hall meeting, as I recall.



Ron Paul, a candidate you supported, indicated the government should not be involved in saving dying and uninsured people, as his official position - to general audience clapping and approval. Three people shouted out approval to the question "should we just let them die".

It's REALLY short - just over a minute. I hope it won't tax you brain beyond its capacity.





ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Wow 1kiki, for a stalker, you really don't know your subjects very well.

I never supported Ron Paul for President. I may have voiced approval on a few issues, but for the most part, I think he goes over board in his ideological views, to the point of being absurd.

Rand Paul, however, I do seem to agree with more, though I've yet to go so far as to say I support him.


Also, per the video, both you and the maker of the video distort Ron Paul's answer. After omitting much of the video ( editing ), he still doesn't really say anything so outrageous , by any means.

The scenario, as put to the Congressman, is that if an able bodied, healthy individual decides he doesn't want to pay for health care, and then ends up getting hospitalized, why is that a burden the state must step in and pick up the cost ? He chose, and now he's got to deal w/ the consequences.

If I smoke, do YOU pay for my cancer treatment ?

If I drive a car, and refuse to pay insurance, do YOU pay for my new car and hospital bills, if I get into an accident ?

All Ron Paul is saying, ( and on this I DO generally agree ) is that we each must be our own keepers, and not rely so much on big brother govt to come save us from ourselves.





Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:14 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.







Yeah, pay no attention to the video b/c it didn't REALLY happen ... you are SUCH an EPIC fail!



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


The heartless Alliance suck ups will carry on about the 'faux' sympathy for this young girl...




Of course you will. You already are.


"People die every day." YOUR quote. YOUR words.


If this was a ten-year-old girl in Afghanistan blown up by a Hellfire missile fired at the wrong wedding party, you'd have not an ounce of sympathy to give, so spare us your phony indignation and bullshit sympathy.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


If I smoke, do YOU pay for my cancer treatment ?




If you smoke in my workplace, are YOU going to pay for MY cancer treatment?

Quote:


If I drive a car, and refuse to pay insurance, do YOU pay for my new car and hospital bills, if I get into an accident ?



Are YOU going to pay for MY new car and hospital bills if you hit me with your uninsured car?

Quote:


All Ron Paul is saying, ( and on this I DO generally agree ) is that we each must be our own keepers, and not rely so much on big brother govt to come save us from ourselves.



How much taxpayer money has been spent trying to get these rules waived? How much has this cost us all?

And why are you even asking "big brother" to come save this girl? Why don't the parents just take her out of the country to a place where they can buy her some lungs on the open market?







"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:30 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


If I smoke, do YOU pay for my cancer treatment ?

If I drive a car, and refuse to pay insurance, do YOU pay for my new car and hospital bills, if I get into an accident ?




That's universal healthcare. Yep, the treatment is based on a needs basis. People are treated without judgement based on their medical needs. I know its hard for you to comprehend a system that isn't punitive and judgemental, but they do exist and do quite well.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


If I smoke, do YOU pay for my cancer treatment ?

If I drive a car, and refuse to pay insurance, do YOU pay for my new car and hospital bills, if I get into an accident ?




That's universal healthcare. Yep, the treatment is based on a needs basis. People are treated without judgement based on their medical needs. I know its hard for you to comprehend a system that isn't punitive and judgemental, but they do exist and do quite well.




Compelling others to pay for your treatment is a concept which you seem to think is just fine, where as I don't.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 3:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


You know, it really does sound sort'a like a "death panel". ;<)





Huh. Whattaya know about that? George W. Bush instituted "death panels", and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but here at home as well.


I wonder where all the conservative outrage was about it then.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:46 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Compelling others to pay for your treatment is a concept which you seem to think is just fine, where as I don't.




Yeah, thats clearly a fundamental difference between us. I believe that no one should be turned away from the health care that they require, regardless of their socio economic status. And that in a properous nation that should not be too hard an ask that people share the cost of universal health care.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Compelling others to pay for your treatment is a concept which you seem to think is just fine, where as I don't.




Yeah, thats clearly a fundamental difference between us. I believe that no one should be turned away from the health care that they require, regardless of their socio economic status. And that in a properous nation that should not be too hard an ask that people share the cost of universal health care.



Universal HC will turn that prosperous nation into a 3rd world nation before too long.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 2:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


You know, it really does sound sort'a like a "death panel". ;<)





Huh. Whattaya know about that? George W. Bush instituted "death panels", and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but here at home as well.



So explain this in such a way as to not have every President who's ever been in power during a war (including Obama) be one who instituted "death panels".


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 5:15 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Compelling others to pay for your profit AND your losses is a concept which you seem to think is just fine, where as I don't.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 8:36 AM

MAL4PREZ


Wait, our resident righties want a teenager with a decent chance of being saved by a lung transplant to die so that a 10 year old can undergo a procedure that doctors think unlikely to succeed? As the article says, there are at least 10 older kids on the waiting list for adult lungs.

Why do you want these teenagers to die righties? Why have you appointed yourselves to their death panel and made the decision that they should be denied treatment? You aren't even doctors!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 1:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Universal HC will turn that prosperous nation into a 3rd world nation before too long.




Yeah because that happened here back in 1975.

Oh wait, no it didn't. You are wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 1:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Universal HC will turn that prosperous nation into a 3rd world nation before too long.




Yeah because that happened here back in 1975.

Oh wait, no it didn't. You are wrong.



Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_
heart_sur.html


Quote:

Wait, our resident righties want a teenager with a decent chance of being saved by a lung transplant to die so that a 10 year old can undergo a procedure that doctors think unlikely to succeed? As the article says, there are at least 10 older kids on the waiting list for adult lungs.

Why do you want these teenagers to die righties? Why have you appointed yourselves to their death panel and made the decision that they should be denied treatment? You aren't even doctors!




Nope. Nice spin, though. This has zero to do w/ a 10 year old bumping anyone off the list so she can cut in line for a new lung. But this is the absurd view you must whip up in order to defend your beloved O-Care death panel.

Palin was right, after all.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 1:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


3rd world claim? Gone from little rappy's argument!



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 2:40 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nope. Nice spin, though. This has zero to do w/ a 10 year old bumping anyone off the list so she can cut in line for a new lung. But this is the absurd view you must whip up in order to defend your beloved O-Care death panel.



Not spin at all. In fact, I had the numbers wrong. It's *40* people waiting for lungs, not 10.

Note:


Sebelius said putting Sarah next in line would disadvantage other young people who have also been waiting for transplants — three of them at the same hospital.

“Unfortunately, there are about 40 seriously ill Pennsylvanians over the age of 12 also waiting for a lung transplant,” she said.


Why do you want these 40 young people to die?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 3:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Yeah because that happened here back in 1975.

Oh wait, no it didn't. You are wrong.



Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_
heart_sur.html





SO does the article show evidence that Canada is now a 3rd world nation thanks to introducing a public health system in the 80's?

One (wealthy) person choosing to use another user pays system does not indicate a failure of the former system.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 3:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


We're not dealing w/ the Canadian system now, are we ?

And it's not like Canada was ever a super power or anything.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 4:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, you really DID give up on that little (c)rappy 'third world' argument, didn't you?



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:05 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

She'll likely not last a week. She'll pass, and this will all be forgotten. The heartless Alliance suck ups will carry on about the 'faux' sympathy for this young girl, and then go on defending this bureaucratic night mare they've elected.



Well she did last the week and today she got her new lungs. And because of her legal case the organ donor selection system has been changed forever to give kids in a similar situation a chance to live.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pa. Girl Who Took On Donor Rules Gets New Lungs

Associated Press – June 12

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A 10-year-old girl whose efforts to qualify for an organ donation drew public debate over how organs are allocated was getting a lung transplant Wednesday, her family said.

Sarah Murnaghan, who suffers from severe cystic fibrosis, was receiving her new lungs Wednesday at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, a family spokeswoman said.

Her health was deteriorating when a federal judge intervened last week, giving her a chance at the much larger list of organs from adult donors.

It wasn't immediately clear if the girl was getting lungs from an adult or child donor. A hospital spokeswoman, Dana Mortensen, said she had no information to release and would not confirm if Murnaghan was getting a transplant.

Murnaghan's mother, Janet, said in a Facebook post that the family was "overwhelmed with emotions" and thanked all her supporters.

"Today is the start of Sarah's new beginning and new life!" she wrote, adding that the donor's family "has experienced a tremendous loss, may God grant them a peace that surpasses understanding."

A double lung transplant can take six to 12 hours, and Murnaghan's surgery began around noon Wednesday. Surgeons must open up the patient's chest, and complications can include rejection of the new lung and infection.

Murnaghan's family and the family of another cystic fibrosis patient at the same hospital challenged existing transplant policy that made children under 12 wait for pediatric lungs to become available or be offered lungs donated by adults only after adolescents and adults on the waiting list had been considered. They said pediatric lungs are rarely donated.

On June 5, federal Judge Michael Baylson in Philadelphia ruled that Murnaghan of Newtown Square, Pa., and 11-year-old Javier Acosta of New York City should be eligible for adult lungs.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network says 31 children under age 11 are on the waiting list for a lung transplant.

The network added Murnaghan to the adult waiting list after Baylson's ruling. Her transplant comes just two days before a hearing was scheduled on the family's request for a broader injunction.

Critics warn there could be a downside to having judges intervene in the organ transplant system's established procedures. Lung transplants are difficult procedures and some say child patients tend to have more trouble with them than adults.

The national organization that manages organ transplants this week resisted making emergency rule changes for children under 12 who are waiting on lungs but created a special appeal and review system to hear such cases.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:53 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Compelling others to pay for your treatment is a concept which you seem to think is just fine, where as I don't.




Yeah, thats clearly a fundamental difference between us. I believe that no one should be turned away from the health care that they require, regardless of their socio economic status. And that in a properous nation that should not be too hard an ask that people share the cost of universal health care.



Well... Technically they're not supposed to get turned away here either. Though some hospitals are known to send confused and medicated patients out a back door or drop them off at a clinic if they find out they can't pay.

But still, normally, the emergency room procedure here is to treat them even if they can't pay, and even if they aren't legal citizens. They send a bill to collections eventually, but the collections agencies can't do much but yell at you over the phone.

*sources: my mom who works in a cancer clinic, a friend who lives in the rural part of Oklahoma who often needs medical attention and who's mother was a nurse.

The problem then is when insurance companies and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies say that they take a lot of losses on this and it drives up healthcare costs even though healthcare costs here are already pretty high to begin with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

She'll likely not last a week. She'll pass, and this will all be forgotten. The heartless Alliance suck ups will carry on about the 'faux' sympathy for this young girl, and then go on defending this bureaucratic night mare they've elected.



Well she did last the week and today she got her new lungs. And because of her legal case the organ donor selection system has been changed forever to give kids in a similar situation a chance to live.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pa. Girl Who Took On Donor Rules Gets New Lungs

Associated Press – June 12

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A 10-year-old girl whose efforts to qualify for an organ donation drew public debate over how organs are allocated was getting a lung transplant Wednesday, her family said.




1st I'm hearing of this. I'm sure those who claim there are such things as 'miracles' will be pleased at this news.

I wish her well.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Yeah, thats clearly a fundamental difference between us. I believe that no one should be turned away from the health care that they require, regardless of their socio economic status. And that in a properous nation that should not be too hard an ask that people share the cost of universal health care.






Why should a doctor, a nurse, a hospital, be forced to do something for free, simply because YOU say so ?

We're not being ASKED anything. We're having it forced upon us, by the might of the imperial federal govt.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:27 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why should a doctor, a nurse, a hospital, be forced to do something for free, simply because YOU say so ?

We're not being ASKED anything. We're having it forced upon us, by the might of the imperial federal govt.





Ah yes, the big bad government, forcing services such as free medical care upon people. What a tyranny that must be.


Noted this in the article.

"Critics warn there could be a downside to having judges intervene in the organ transplant system's established procedures. Lung transplants are difficult procedures and some say child patients tend to have more trouble with them than adults. "

Also that there are 31 other children waiting for transplants. Issues here, more lungs needed than are actually available, hence those pesky regulations kick in.

Oh well, I know you'd prefer a bidding war in a user pays system, Rap. Market forces et al. Much more compassionate. Oh wait, compassion doesn't matter, unless you are forcing the crocodile tears out to score a political point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



You're intentionally twisting the issue, and i can understand why.

Govt didnt' step in here and force anyone to give free HC here. In fact, it's the opposite, as Sebelius ( govt ) was DENYING her care, because of an arbitrary rule, based on age.

some people live, some people die


In a FREE society, there'd not be such rules that prohibit this type of age discrimination.


And this one of those joys of O-Care, where it's up to Sebelius to decide who lived or died, based on HER signature. She, like the Emperors of old , gave the crowd a 'thumbs down' , and sentenced this girl to death.

Were her parents TEA party supporters ? I wonder.




Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:20 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

1st I'm hearing of this. I'm sure those who claim there are such things as 'miracles' will be pleased at this news.

I wish her well.



Her surgery will be over at about 9:00 pm tonight. Hopefully the doctors will give a statement on her condition as soon as is appropriate. From the parents' perspective it must feel like a miracle, and it's one that they had a hand in themselves.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

1st I'm hearing of this. I'm sure those who claim there are such things as 'miracles' will be pleased at this news.

I wish her well.



Her surgery will be over at about 9:00 pm tonight. Hopefully the doctors will give a statement on her condition as soon as is appropriate. From the parents' perspective it must feel like a miracle, and it's one that they had a hand in themselves.



I guess that's kinda my point. They fought, and with everything they had, to get this far. It's still a dicey situation, as there are no guarantees, but I think they were in the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:27 PM

JONGSSTRAW


As of 9:00 pm,

"The Murnaghan family said it was "thrilled" to share the news that Sarah was out of surgery.

"Her doctors are very pleased with both her progress during the procedure and her prognosis for recovery," the family said in a statement.

Sarah went into surgery around 11 a.m. Wednesday, and the procedure lasted about six hours, her family said.

"The surgeons had no challenges resizing and transplanting the donor lungs — the surgery went smoothly, and Sarah did extremely well," it said. "She is in the process of getting settled in the ICU and now her recovery begins."



Score one for the good guys!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


One of the biggest problems I have with this is that it's not driven by science. It may be a positive feed-back loop, but there isn't a whole lot of data on the survivability of young recipients after they get adult lungs. OTOH there is a lot more data on adult to adult transplants. By giving adult lungs to a child - or in this case ordering it for two children - you're condemning someone to death who would have had a more certain outcome. You're doing that in order to pursue a less certain outcome in someone else.

I wonder who died to make this happen. I wonder what their potential lifespan would have been if they had gotten those lungs instead.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


some people live, some people die


In a FREE society, there'd not be such rules that prohibit this type of age discrimination.


And this one of those joys of O-Care, where it's up to Sebelius to decide who lived or died, based on HER signature. She, like the Emperors of old , gave the crowd a 'thumbs down' , and sentenced this girl to death.

Were her parents TEA party supporters ? I wonder.



Can you really be as ignorant as you make out?

In your free society with no age restrictions, would adult lungs be shoved into a baby?

How would decisions be made on who gets transplants if demand outstripped supply?

Do you honestly think that under ANY system that is ethical that triage considerations would not come into affect?

how exactly would it work in Rappyworld, I'd really love to hear. And I'll be impressed if you can answer this a) with more than one sentence b) not using right winged platitudes.

Awaiting your response with bated breath.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
One of the biggest problems I have with this is that it's not driven by science. It may be a positive feed-back loop, but there isn't a whole lot of data on the survivability of young recipients after they get adult lungs. OTOH there is a lot more data on adult to adult transplants. By giving adult lungs to a child - or in this case ordering it for two children - you're condemning someone to death who would have had a more certain outcome. You're doing that in order to pursue a less certain outcome in someone else.

I wonder who died to make this happen. I wonder what their potential lifespan would have been if they had gotten those lungs instead.



Yes, the saddest thing about this whole sorry beat up is that regardless of who gets the lungs, someone probably will die.

My understanding is that the survivability rate for young recipients is not so good. Wish her well though.

This nonsense about death panels that gets spouted. I really wonder at the IQ level of a lot of right wingers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:46 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Score one for the good guys!



I don't think this is a case of good vs. bad guys.

It's not like they would have thrown the lung out with lunch leftovers if this girl hadn't received it. There is a person out there who did NOT get the lung because she did. Who may be equally ill, equally loved by those around them.

This is a terribly complex issue and I think strong guidelines need to be in place so people donating their body parts (or those of loved ones) can be sure they are given to the candidate with the best possible outcome, not those with a good publicity team or enough money to buy an organ.

There was an organ transplant scandal in Germany just recently and willingness to donate dropped markedly in reaction to doctors falsifying records to get rich patients up the list. Being able to trust in a fair framework of rules is apparently an important aspect of getting people to decide to donate in the first place.

Amending the rules if they are truly flawed is a good thing, but just waiving them because the recipient has determined parents? How does that make anyone "the good guys"? There is a person out there who did NOT get the lung because she did. It's great for her and her family, I wish her the very best, but it's not some clear-cut triumph of good over evil.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:26 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Don't try and sway this thread with your reasonable logic, Agent.

This one is definitely a victory for the good guys. Yay for little girls, boo for ebil gubment death panels who wanted her dead.

Bwah ha haha

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA



This is why I am all for research into cloning human organs, just so you know.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
South Korea
Tue, November 5, 2024 05:00 - 4 posts
Worst poll yet!
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:43 - 19 posts
Poll Shows Americans' Massive Disapproval Of Both Parties: "Now It's Just An Oligarchy"
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:36 - 24 posts
New CNN Poll Raises Eyebrows
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:32 - 10 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 03:22 - 4512 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 02:49 - 4675 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Mon, November 4, 2024 20:13 - 636 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, November 4, 2024 18:24 - 175 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:54 - 7421 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:52 - 37 posts
The DEI Hires Thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:23 - 4 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:15 - 11 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL