Total Pageviews

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Barletta Tries To Save Local Girls Life ...Obama Administration : Let Her Die

 Well this is the woman who has a great deal to do with obama care. Her agency and the IRS will take the lead in running and applying the rules for obama care.Personally I find neither very reassuring and I do find it odd as I thought these were the folks who claimed they would not be denying care or there would be death panels.

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

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., 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,” Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., 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 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 than other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”
Sebelius reminded Barletta that 40 people in Pennsylvania are on the “highest acuity list” for lung transplants.


  1. ...a Federal Judge got this child on the list. Everyone once in a while, a Federal Judge gets one right.

  2. So what was the name of the person who died because they didn't get the lung?

  3. Oh c'mon, moderated? You have zero comments yet you're so scared of what someone might say that you have this blog moderated?

  4. Sigh... I guess that Aggie is too busy in his public bromance with Ralphie that he doesn't respond to comments on his own ghost town blog. Gee, that'd be the recipe for making a ghost town blog, wouldn't it?

    1. well say something that peeks my interest

    2. You already missed two major points:

      1) this is a feel-good liberal story. Somebody likely did die because the rule was broken, lungs aren't in oversupply. I'm glad for the little girl, but zero attention is paid to the person who died. This is a 'kindler gentler' slice of Bush-style political correctness, this time from Barletta et al.

      We see the same thing now in the effort to slide illegals into amnesty... oh, look at the very nice illegal children who are suffering because of the big bad policy. We need to let them all in. Then, you can't break up the family, so moms have to get amnesty, too. And fathers, married of baby daddy type. This is the campaign that is wining the tide, as the country sinks from the weight of these emotionally made decisions.

      Even Cesar 'Dog Whisperer' Millan is now bragging how he broke the law by entering through a tunnel.

      You run a country on tear jerker stories and you end up with an unqualified clown like Obama in the White House.

      Yes, I get the implied connection with death panels. But sacrificing principle just to play at "us versus them" is what liberals do. nd Republicans. But that shoud be beneath actual right winger conservatives.

      2) a moderated blog kills coments. Comments make or break a blog, nobody is so brilliant and wonderful and enagaging that a blog is worthwhile just to read the blogger's thoughts. Even Eugene Volokh has an unmoderated blog.

      This area could use at least one good blog where the blog owner knows what they are doing. The comments in the papers are 90% zoo. The TL censors according to political correctness, while running a steady stream of tear jerker stories.

      Ah well, at least you rose from your slumber to reply :)

      (I must have had too much time on my hands today.)

      Btw, you're 100% wrong about the retaliation shooting. You can't chase somebody and shoot them in the back... and end up not guilty. That pharmacist in Texas found out the hard way that an intelligent person doesn't have tantrums. If he had been educated correctly, he'd be free and the thug would still be dead.

    3. yea here in Pa things don't much work like they do in Texas Texas its likely this guy would have already been free ....Grand juries in Texas tend to have a mind of thei own and often laugh at cases like these brough before them .... google up Joe Horn for an example .... will this jury convict Thomas of something .... most likely but it will likely be man 1 or 2

    4. Okay, Aggie, since you are the best commenter at the newspapers you could have had the best blog around; but I guess you just don't like comments. Good luck to you though and keep up the good work at the papers.

      (I had seen the heartening video of the crowds in TX shouting down the Sharpton-juniors who went there expecting after Joe Horn to get away with the usual PC maneuvering. But the pharmacist that I referred to [Jerome Ersland in OK, not TX. I remembered wrong] is convicted of murder because he didn't know the law. The OK courts also set one of the trash robbers free, for now. A good man is in prison.

      But stop saying "google it" unless you want to keep supporting the Obama-loving elitist liberal jerks there who also invade privacy at every single turn. And supported the Red Chinese censorship, while lying about it like a Clinton.