Rep Sheila Jackson...CLASSIC!! lol

[newtothegame]

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to Neil Cavuto: “It’s Not My Fault That You Can’t Understand Logic”

Part One:


Click “more” to watch what happened when Neil told Rep. Jackson Lee that she had “messed up.”

Part Two:

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/19/rep-sheila-jackson-lee-to-neil-cavuto-its-not-my-fault-that-you-cant-understand-logic/

Sorry the video didnt post here...but its at the link....

[Tom]

I caught that on the drive home - funny stuff.
Lots of brain cells being under-used.

[illinoisbred]

Wow,is she that naive, or just plain dumb? Hard to believe she's been in the house for 15 years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hard to believe she's been in the house for 15 years.It is?

[boxcar]

Wow,is she that naive, or just plain dumb? Hard to believe she's been in the house for 15 years.

Also, what does that say for the people who have voted for her all these years? :rolleyes: That gal is dumber than a rock.

Boxcar

[illinoisbred]

Also, what does that say for the people who have voted for her all these years? :rolleyes: That gal is dumber than a rock.

Boxcar
Not much. Her voters must be brought in by busloads and given a free lunch afterwards.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I think she proved why she's in Congress for 15 years - she got on the show, and didn't care about the question and follow-up question, she just kept talking on and on about her talking points and what she wanted people to believe about the HC law - forget about explaing her statement to congress about why people are going to die if the health care law is recinded, or why the lady in the picture who is actually on medicare is going to die if the health care law is recinded. She got caught being manipulative, so she just kept talking to avoid it and tried turning it around.

She had to be a Congress Member - they have smaller set of voters from a limited geographic area to fool in order to get elected & reelected.

[illinoisbred]

Agree Steve-its just so clear she lacks the acumen to be a good manipulator.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Well, she can't manipulate us at most smart viewers and voters.

People saying there is great stuff in the healthcare bill is like reading a list of the great recreational activities onboard the Titanic.

[newtothegame]

I especially like when Neil, tells her either provide proof, or "your making things up"......
And her only reply is well "republicans are making things up" and that "republicans havent even read the bill"....lol
Did she not see the massive coverage of members her OWN party ADMITTING they need to pass it first so they can see whats inside of it???
DUMB!

[ElKabong]

Typical stupid liberal democrat from Texas. Which explains why this state votes Repub across the board, and has for the past quarter of a century. The Dems add nothing here, These two clips are all too familiar.

The scary part is there are people stupid enough to believe her.

[NJ Stinks]

Are all of you denying that people with pre-existing conditions, who were denied health insurance upfront or were denied coverage for certain medical treatments by their health insurance companies, never die from that pre-existing condition?

If not, you and Neil are arguing semantics. :sleeping:

Wailing about dealing with a government bureauacracy in terms that make it appear to be a more significant issue than making all sure all Americans have access to healthcare is ridiculous. Medicare only confirms the dumbness of Cavuto's supposed gotcha moment. :ThmbDown:

[boxcar]

Are all of you denying that people with pre-existing conditions, who were denied health insurance upfront or were denied coverage for certain medical treatments by their health insurance companies, never die from that pre-existing condition?

If not, you and Neil are arguing semantics. :sleeping:

I'm beginning to think that you write at least half your posts in snooze mode. :rolleyes: Produce copies all the death certificates wherein the doctors state the Cause of Death as "Rationed Care by Insurance Company" or "Denial of Coverage by Insurance Company", then we can begin to talk. Anything less than this, then bandied about numbers are mere speculation that were probably pulled out various liberals' body orifices.

And besides, why would YOU care about this? You're in full support of rationed care for seasoned citizens. You real beef isn't that people die from lack of care -- but the demographics of those people are your utmost concern. It's okay if the state denies seniors their care, but when an insurance company denies coverage or rations care, then the company is evil. You're another tired lib hypocrite who could care less if ALL seniors receive needed care. In your world some people are obviously created a little bit more equal than others, aren't they? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

Are all of you denying that people with pre-existing conditions, who were denied health insurance upfront or were denied coverage for certain medical treatments by their health insurance companies, never die from that pre-existing condition?

If not, you and Neil are arguing semantics. :sleeping:

Wailing about dealing with a government bureauacracy in terms that make it appear to be a more significant issue than making all sure all Americans have access to healthcare is ridiculous. Medicare only confirms the dumbness of Cavuto's supposed gotcha moment. :ThmbDown:

No one in Dallas County has ever been turned away from Parkland for treatment. That includes illegals. These same people will game the system that was currently dealt with behind closed doors, away from Republican minority members. So I look at your first sentence and chuckle. Thanks for posting anyway, Sheila :)

[NJ Stinks]

I'm beginning to think that you write at least half your posts in snooze mode. :rolleyes: Produce copies all the death certificates wherein the doctors state the Cause of Death as "Rationed Care by Insurance Company" or "Denial of Coverage by Insurance Company", then we can begin to talk. Anything less than this, then bandied about numbers are mere speculation that were probably pulled out various liberals' body orifices.

And besides, why would YOU care about this? You're in full support of rationed care for seasoned citizens. You real beef isn't that people die from lack of care -- but the demographics of those people are your utmost concern. It's okay if the state denies seniors their care, but when an insurance company denies coverage or rations care, then the company is evil. You're another tired lib hypocrite who could care less if ALL seniors receive needed care. In your world some people are obviously created a little bit more equal than others, aren't they? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Responding to you is usually a bad idea. But here goes....

Spending a lot of money on very old people affects the ability of society to treat younger people who may actually recover and live for many years.

Here's a question for you. In Arizona their state Medicaid program has stopped financing certain organ transplants. 100 people are affected and 2 have died so far. Do you think it's right for Medicare to pay for everything under the sun for the oldest Arizona residents while younger (poor) Arizona residents die due to lack of funding?

Because the truth is that the federal government spends so much on Medicare for the seniors in Arizona, it can't afford to bolster Arizona's Medicaid organ transplants program like the federal government used to be able to do.

So tell me, Solomon. Do we as a country continue to spend endlessly on 88 year heart attack victims or do we opt to pay for organ transplants for people who are in many cases 50 years younger? (Obviously, we cannot afford to do both.)

[JustRalph]

I hate to drag this one out again,,,,,, but isn't this the same lady who asked if the Mars Rover could see the flag that Neil Armstrong planted ?

[ElKabong]

No Ralph, that was Tina Fey.....

[Tom]

No, Tina is the one who can see the Russians.

[delayjf]

Spending a lot of money on very old people affects the ability of society to treat younger people who may actually recover and live for many years.

Can I conclude from your post you are fine with death panels?

[Tom]

And that you are fine with the government making those kind of value decisions?

[boxcar]

Responding to you is usually a bad idea. But here goes....

Spending a lot of money on very old people affects the ability of society to treat younger people who may actually recover and live for many years.

Here's a question for you. In Arizona their state Medicaid program has stopped financing certain organ transplants. 100 people are affected and 2 have died so far. Do you think it's right for Medicare to pay for everything under the sun for the oldest Arizona residents while younger (poor) Arizona residents die due to lack of funding?

Because the truth is that the federal government spends so much on Medicare for the seniors in Arizona, it can't afford to bolster Arizona's Medicaid organ transplants program like the federal government used to be able to do.

So tell me, Solomon. Do we as a country continue to spend endlessly on 88 year heart attack victims or do we opt to pay for organ transplants for people who are in many cases 50 years younger? (Obviously, we cannot afford to do both.)

I'm glad you have finally come to recognize my wisdom. Now, gird up the loins of your mind and hear what "Solomon" has to say: All life is precious. All life is a gift from God. No one life is more equal in God's eyes than another; for all human beings are created in God's image. Therefore, all men are created equal; for we all bear God's image upon our soul.

To routinely and systematically discriminate against the elderly because the state has determined their lives have less value than someone else of a younger age is exceedingly wicked; for the gift of life did not originate with the state but from God. Therefore, the godless state has no right to assume the role of God and declare who gets to live and die. The only legitimate exception to this is the capital punishment mandate that it has from God. Period. So, unless growing old and becoming sick is a crime worthy of capital punishment, then the state itself becomes guilty of first degree murder whenever it assumes the role of final arbiter and unilaterally decrees that it will withhold needed medical treatment from any chronically ill patient against that patient's will, thereby assuring a quicker death for the patient. (Recall my analogy of a son withholding meds from his chronically ill mom because the costs for them put too much of a financial burden on him?)

When an elderly person (or in fact any person of any age) becomes chronically ill and requires long and expensive treatment, the various options for treatment or levels of treatment should remain primarily with the patient -- then the doctors, family, clergy, friends, etc. This is a highly personal decision not a business or an accounting one! Bean counters from the state should not be involved in such decisions.

What is the solution to this kind of problem with chronically ill or long term care patients. Well, we live in a capitalistic, free market society wherein the quality of life we live is determined by our income sources or other financial resources. Reasonable and rationale people use the means test to determine what they can afford and not afford to buy. A person making 20K a year is probably not going to go out and buy (nor should he!) a 60" HD Plasma TV like his neighbor down the street has and was able to afford on his 75K annual salary. Likewise, a low income family should not expect to receive top quality medical care. They should not expect to receive "Cadillac" quality care at for the cost of a Pinto. It's not the way our economic system works, generally, and I see no compelling reason to make any exceptions -- especially with health care because health care itself is NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NEED!. (When Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer, he did not ask his Father to give us this day our daily health care! Nor did Jesus tell his disciples that man doesn't live by his health care alone. And if food is not a God-given right, then why should health care be!?)

While the individual means test might initially seem unfair, I submit to you that it eminently fair and just; for each of us is ultimately responsible for the choices we make in this life, and on the Last Day we will answer to the Almighty for every single choice we have made. In very many cases (if not most) people of low income or scant financial resources are in that position due to poor choices. In their case, the universal moral principle of "reaping what we have sown" in this life (which I have discussed on other occasions) would apply to them.

While in many other cases, people could be "victim of circumstances", which means for any number of reasons beyond their immediate control they're not financially equipped to really buy the best of anything in life, let alone health care. I think a compassionate society should provide these people with basic health care, such as what is currently provided under Medicaid. Again, under Medicaid, recipients should not expect to receive "Cadillac" type treatment at "Pinto" costs -- or at NO COSTS! In other words, society should do what it reasonably can to help relieve suffering and pain. But as I told 'cap in another thread several weeks ago -- a "beggar" who goes to a soup kitchen to receive some nourishment for his body should not expect to receive a filet mignon dinner with all the trappings! This isn't how life works, except in those relatively rare instances of individual and personal generosity.

None of this addresses specific problems within our health care system, which are many -- and which I will also not hesitate to add can be attributed either directly or indirectly to government involvement (bureaucratic meddling) in the health care industry. (Another great example of disastrous government meddling into industries can be seen with Education and how costs are now totally out of control.) As stated often on this forum, I believe there are free market solutions to these problems that would bring costs down appreciably without the government seizing control of the industry and seizing control over our personal health care decisions, as well.

What this problem of health care truly boils down to is WHO gets to apply the "means test". This is the crux of the matter. Socialism finds its ground in Marx's Creed -- "From each according to his means...". In this model, the state gets to apply the means test. But in a free society, I say, Our needs should be met according to our own ability to pay. In this free society model, the individual rightfully applies his own test. The individual retains control over his own life, and this is how it should be in a truly free society that places a premium on individual liberties.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Can I conclude from your post you are fine with death panels?

No. But given the fact that Republicans never saw a tax cut they didn't like, painful decisions have to be made.

[NJ Stinks]

And that you are fine with the government making those kind of value decisions?

Somebody has to make it. We can't afford the status quo. Unless we don't care if the resources are wrongly allocated. (My opinion, of course.)

[NJ Stinks]

I'm glad you have finally come to recognize my wisdom. Now, gird up the loins of your mind and hear what "Solomon" has to say: All life is precious. All life is a gift from God. No one life is more equal in God's eyes than another; for all human beings are created in God's image. Therefore, all men are created equal; for we all bear God's image upon our soul.

To routinely and systematically discriminate against the elderly because the state has determined their lives have less value than someone else of a younger age is exceedingly wicked; for the gift of life did not originate with the state but from God. Therefore, the godless state has no right to assume the role of God and declare who gets to live and die. The only legitimate exception to this is the capital punishment mandate that it has from God. Period. So, unless growing old and becoming sick is a crime worthy of capital punishment, then the state itself becomes guilty of first degree murder whenever it assumes the role of final arbiter and unilaterally decrees that it will withhold needed medical treatment from any chronically ill patient against that patient's will, thereby assuring a quicker death for the patient. (Recall my analogy of a son withholding meds from his chronically ill mom because the costs for them put too much of a financial burden on him?)

When an elderly person (or in fact any person of any age) becomes chronically ill and requires long and expensive treatment, the various options for treatment or levels of treatment should remain primarily with the patient -- then the doctors, family, clergy, friends, etc. This is a highly personal decision not a business or an accounting one! Bean counters from the state should not be involved in such decisions.

What is the solution to this kind of problem with chronically ill or long term care patients. Well, we live in a capitalistic, free market society wherein the quality of life we live is determined by our income sources or other financial resources. Reasonable and rationale people use the means test to determine what they can afford and not afford to buy. A person making 20K a year is probably not going to go out and buy (nor should he!) a 60" HD Plasma TV like his neighbor down the street has and was able to afford on his 75K annual salary. Likewise, a low income family should not expect to receive top quality medical care. They should not expect to receive "Cadillac" quality care at for the cost of a Pinto. It's not the way our economic system works, generally, and I see no compelling reason to make any exceptions -- especially with health care because health care itself is NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NEED!. (When Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer, he did not ask his Father to give us this day our daily health care! Nor did Jesus tell his disciples that man doesn't live by his health care alone. And if food is not a God-given right, then why should health care be!?)

While the individual means test might initially seem unfair, I submit to you that it eminently fair and just; for each of us is ultimately responsible for the choices we make in this life, and on the Last Day we will answer to the Almighty for every single choice we have made. In very many cases (if not most) people of low income or scant financial resources are in that position due to poor choices. In their case, the universal moral principle of "reaping what we have sown" in this life (which I have discussed on other occasions) would apply to them.

While in many other cases, people could be "victim of circumstances", which means for any number of reasons beyond their immediate control they're not financially equipped to really buy the best of anything in life, let alone health care. I think a compassionate society should provide these people with basic health care, such as what is currently provided under Medicaid. Again, under Medicaid, recipients should not expect to receive "Cadillac" type treatment at "Pinto" costs -- or at NO COSTS! In other words, society should do what it reasonably can to help relieve suffering and pain. But as I told 'cap in another thread several weeks ago -- a "beggar" who goes to a soup kitchen to receive some nourishment for his body should not expect to receive a filet mignon dinner with all the trappings! This isn't how life works, except in those relatively rare instances of individual and personal generosity.

None of this addresses specific problems within our health care system, which are many -- and which I will also not hesitate to add can be attributed either directly or indirectly to government involvement (bureaucratic meddling) in the health care industry. (Another great example of disastrous government meddling into industries can be seen with Education and how costs are now totally out of control.) As stated often on this forum, I believe there are free market solutions to these problems that would bring costs down appreciably without the government seizing control of the industry and seizing control over our personal health care decisions, as well.

What this problem of health care truly boils down to is WHO gets to apply the "means test". This is the crux of the matter. Socialism finds its ground in Marx's Creed -- "From each according to his means...". In this model, the state gets to apply the means test. But in a free society, I say, Our needs should be met according to our own ability to pay. In this free society model, the individual rightfully applies his own test. The individual retains control over his own life, and this is how it should be in a truly free society that places a premium on individual liberties.

Boxcar

I appreciate your response. I may not agree with it but that is irrelevant. There are no easy solutions here.

[cj's dad]

I appreciate your response. I may not agree with it but that is irrelevant. There are no easy solutions here.

NJ Stinks - your response is pretty weak - NO ???`

[NJ Stinks]

NJ Stinks - your response is pretty weak - NO ???`

Yea, it was. But Boxcar refrained from calling me a moron this time while stating what he believes. And I already stated what I think.

What are your thoughts on this, CJ's Dad?

[riskman]

Interesting facts;

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
● 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical
cause.
● Most medical debtors were well educated
and middle class; three quarters
had health insurance.
● The share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 50% between
2001 and 2007

http://healthcare.procon.org/sourcefiles/HimmelsteinMedicalBankruptcy2007.pdf

[boxcar]

I appreciate your response. I may not agree with it but that is irrelevant. There are no easy solutions here.

And socialized medicine is a downright evil solution on multiple levels -- even though on the surface it appears to be so humane, so compassionate, so caring. At the end of the day, some bureaucratic bean counter whose primary concern is to control costs to the state, will eventually become the final arbiter of who lives and who dies. He will get to play God and tell a patient's physician that he or she cannot have access to certain care, which will guarantee that patient's premature death.

You might think that I emotionally overstated the value that human life has to God. I assure you that I did not. I did not overplay my hand by exaggerating my case; for my opinion is informed and grounded solidly in scripture. And while I have a few minutes, I'd like to briefly lay out two strands of biblical arguments that will support my premise that there is no more valuable possession, in God's eyes, than human life. Here is the bible text that forms the first part of my argument:

John 15:13
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
NASB

In the larger context of this passage, Jesus is actually alluding to the death he would soon suffer on behalf of his people. But we should not miss the central point that he was making -- that true, genuine, biblical love finds it ultimate expression in the sacrificial giving of one's own life on behalf of someone else. Whenever someone trades his life in exchange for another man's, no greater statement of love can possibly be made. There simply is no greater love! Why is this? Because the most valuable possession any of us have is our life! It is of inestimable value. It's not possible to give anything of greater worth!

Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it) also bears this truth out. I think most of us can have no greater admiration or respect for a fellow human beings when his or her heroic actions resulted in saving a life while losing his or her own in the very act. I think most of would tend to think of such a person as genuine hero. I think most of us would believe that a more honorable act would not be possible. What more could a person give than his very life? What act would be more noble? I think most decent human beings would think along these lines.

My second line of argument, while very different, nonetheless is just as poignant and complements the first strand, and is taken from the shortest verse in the bible:

John 11:35
Jesus wept.
NASB

This is the only place in all scripture where it recorded that Jesus cried or wept. This isn't to say that he never displayed such human emotion on other occasions but if he did, it was not recorded for us. And to be sure, he had plenty of opportunities to feel this kind of profound sense of sorrow or sadness. He often talked about the poor, for example, but as far as we know he never wept or grieved for them. And who can count the number of sick and physically afflicted he healed; yet, he never shed a tear for them either, as far as we can tell. Nor did he shed any tears over apostate Jerusalem when he contemplated and lamented over her apostasy when in the temple. But he did shed tears over the death of a loved one.

To come within a reasonable grasp of the profound implications to this little verse, one must understand it in its larger context which begins in verse 1 of this chapter. News had been sent to Jesus that Lazarus was sick. And Jesus loved that entire family dearly -- Lazarus, Mary and Martha. These three were all siblings. As the story unfolds that eventually takes us to one of Christ's most spectacular miracles -- calling the dead to life -- raising the dead from the grave -- Jesus, for this very purpose tarried a couple of days when he received the news of his friend's sickness. It wasn't until four days later that he arrived in Bethany the town where Lazarus had lived with his two sisters. He then had encounters with the two sisters and was asked to be taken to Lazarus' tomb wherein his body had already lain for four days and, therefore, had already begun to decay.

Jesus sensed the profound sorrow of the two sisters and other mourners over the loss of Lazarus. In this context he, too, wept. He wept for Lazarus because he loved him (v.3) and he wept for the mourners because they, too, lost a loved one. Jesus grieved the death of his beloved friend , just as the two sisters and other mourners grieved. He grieved over the loss of life. Perhaps this is why we don't read of him weeping on any other occasion. What greater loss is there than the loss of a loved one's life? Can there be any greater loss? I submit to you that there cannot be, and this is why "Jesus wept". One's life is everything. One's life is all. And one's life is the most significant to those loved one left behind. Do I even need to draw any parallels from Natural Revelation to further verify this fact?

Socialism as a form of government, generally, and socialized medicine, even more specifically, are inherently evil on every level imaginable. They are evil because the State usurps the role and authority of God. They are evil because the State violates legitimate God-given rights in the name of phony, contrived "human rights" or "social justice". They are evil because their laws, by necessity, cannot possibly treat everyone equally; yet, for a law to be truly just, all must be treated equally under it. (Rationing of health care, for example, will eventually result in age discrimination among other things.) And finally, they are wicked because the State ultimately determines the value of human life and that value will be assessed on mere monetary costs.

The love of money is truly the root of all forms of evil, isn't it?

Boxcar

[dartman51]

Responding to you is usually a bad idea. But here goes....

Spending a lot of money on very old people affects the ability of society to treat younger people who may actually recover and live for many years.

Here's a question for you. In Arizona their state Medicaid program has stopped financing certain organ transplants. 100 people are affected and 2 have died so far. Do you think it's right for Medicare to pay for everything under the sun for the oldest Arizona residents while younger (poor) Arizona residents die due to lack of funding?

Because the truth is that the federal government spends so much on Medicare for the seniors in Arizona, it can't afford to bolster Arizona's Medicaid organ transplants program like the federal government used to be able to do.

So tell me, Solomon. Do we as a country continue to spend endlessly on 88 year heart attack victims or do we opt to pay for organ transplants for people who are in many cases 50 years younger? (Obviously, we cannot afford to do both.)

I wonder how you will feel about these statements, if or when, you reach a RIPE OLD AGE, and some Govt. bureaucrat tells you, "sorry old fella, we've gotta give the medicine to some young person, you're not worth anything to society anymore." How heartless is that??
At age 71, my mother was given 6 months to live, tops. With treatment, she lived another 5 years. I, for one, was thankful for every minute, beyond the 6 months.

[NJ Stinks]

I wonder how you will feel about these statements, if or when, you reach a RIPE OLD AGE, and some Govt. bureaucrat tells you, "sorry old fella, we've gotta give the medicine to some young person, you're not worth anything to society anymore." How heartless is that??
At age 71, my mother was given 6 months to live, tops. With treatment, she lived another 5 years. I, for one, was thankful for every minute, beyond the 6 months.

Dartman, I'm not talking about giving up on a 71 year old.

I'm 61. That 'ripe old age' is not that far away. Anyway, heartless is selfishly demanding costly medical procedures in one's old age when that money could be used to save a younger person instead. Of course, in a perfect world we could continue to treat everyone equally.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Of course, in a 'really, really perfect world', nobody would need health care.

[boxcar]

Dartman, I'm not talking about giving up on a 71 year old.

I'm 61. That 'ripe old age' is not that far away. Anyway, heartless is selfishly demanding costly medical procedures in one's old age when that money could be used to save a younger person instead. Of course, in a perfect world we could continue to treat everyone equally.

No! Heartlessly selfish is when a greedy son, for example, willfully withholds expensive medication from his elderly mother because the costs of the meds is putting too much of a strain on his finances.

Heartlessly selfish is when some equally cold-hearted bureaucratic bean counter withholds those same meds from some nanny.

Or heartlessly selfish is when someone, who doesn't have two dimes to rub together, demands medical services at the expense of others.

Or heartlessly selfish is it when illegals cross our borders to game our welfare or health care system, AND the U.S. government won't do anything about it, but instead allows the situation to fester and get out of hand in order to pursue its selfish political agendas.

There's nothing "heartlessly selfish" about wanting to protect and preserve our most valuable possession, which once lost can never be regained in this age. Self-preservation is fundamental human instinct. This is even more true of people who have paid into Medicare all their lives expecting the government to care for them as promised. But how selfishly heartless is it of the state to pull a bait and switch scam in the mid stream of its Ponzi Scheme -- a scheme in which people were forced to participate!? :bang: :bang:

Finally, as you have just conceded, we don't live in a perfect world; therefore there is no perfect solution to providing the best care to all upon demand. Therefore, we must, as a society, rely upon the best ethical solution, which I believe is the Individual application of the Means Test, which each of us uses every single day when making purchases. This plus limited care under a greatly reformed Medicaid program, in addition to private sector reforms would be the best solution possible in this imperfect world.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Of course, in a 'really, really perfect world', nobody would need health care.

BINGO! In a perfect world there would be no pain, suffering, sicknesses, misery or even DEATH! God created everything perfectly, but Man blew it big time.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Sheila Jackson Lee to Neil Cavuto: “It’s Not My Fault That You Can’t Understand Logic”
There was one network that also carried the story about a mother who lost her job and insurance and could not pay for her son's treatment.

So dovetailing off of stories like the above she later asked must my child die because I cannot get coverage? Apparently the network than aired the above story nor her have every heard of SCHIP.