One way to cut healthcare cost,

[ignerntbend]

Agreed but it was the only web site I could find the piece at. Found pieces of it scattered all over the web but wanted to link the whole thing.

You admit that this is the most biased source ever linked to on OSA, but it's the only source that told you what you wanted to hear. LAUGH OUT LOUD!

 

[Isha's Pa Pa]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,hobbes,,,,,,,, it should still be that way, i know of a case where there are 4 kids grand ma has , dope head mom is in jail , grand ma is gettin $2000.00+ a month in welfare!!!!!!!!

What is wrong with Grandma getting money to take care of her Grand kids
if she needs the help to raise them !
Just sayin ..

 

[RickN]

Disagree on the first because if the doctors did not recommend them and the government pay for them, there would be far fewer done.

I do agree on the source but like I said in an earlier post, it was the only site I could find with the whole piece and not just bits and pieces. This is being talked about in the UK media and in healthcare circles but you are still missing the point in that this is about how the cost of healthcare is being slanted to make the US look worse then it is. That may be my fault for not being clearer but I figured someone would have picked up on it by now.

To put it simply, if you abort children that are going to have greater healthcare needs it drives down the overall cost of healthcare figures. It also slants the infant mortality rate because many of these kids will die early in life. Same as how the difference in counting stillborns helps make it look like we have a higher infant mortality rate.

So basically this thread has nothing to do with healtcare costs, even though that's what the thread title sold it as.

The UK did not encourage these women to have abortions to save on healtcare costs. That's like stealing salt packets from fast food joints to save on your grocery bill. Implying that they did is more than a bit of a stretch.

These women requested an abortion. Nobody made that decision but them. Hopefully. Now if the UK was legally requiring these women have abortions, then you might have something. I feel pretty safe in stating that they ain't doing that.

See the above.

Agreed but it was the only web site I could find the piece at. Found pieces of it scattered all over the web but wanted to link the whole thing.

You admit that this is the most biased source ever linked to on OSA, but it's the only source that told you what you wanted to hear. LAUGH OUT LOUD!

Nice spin but incorrect. It is the only source online I could find the whole piece at. I could have linked any of the others but none gave any comments from the other side.

 

[ignerntbend]

Link to them then. We're still here, and we're all ears.

 

[RickN]

Give me a few to switch back to my other PC. I am on my work one now.

Should I take an extra minute to see if you jumped on JB for his biased source in the Hot Coffee thread.

 

[ignerntbend]

I never ***** about anything Books says. Even when I want to.

 

[ignerntbend]

And I over look you too Rick , most of the time.

 

[RickN]

OK I can not get out of what I have running now so I can not switch back to my other PC, but here is one I remembered. 2nd gray box down.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/05/the-victims-of-nationalized-health-care/

Now I have to get back to work.

 

[ignerntbend]

Yep, Michell Malkin. That'll do. Don't bother yourself any further Rick

 

[ignerntbend]

Life News ties all the whackados into one elegant package of whackadoism.