Congress Refuses to Do Right by Children’s Health Care
As Republican lawmakers celebrate the passage of a tax bill that will make the wealthiest Americans richer, many lower-income families are faced with the real possibility that their children will soon lose their health insurance because Congress didn’t care enough to renew funding for it.
Yarek Waszul
The Children’s Health Insurance Program has enjoyed bipartisan support since its creation in 1997. It covers about nine million kids from families who are not affluent by any stretch of the imagination but happen to earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. In the past, the program was typically reauthorized for five years with little controversy. Not this time. Republican leaders in Congress have been unwilling or unable to make CHIP, as the program is known, a priority since funding lapsed nearly three months ago. The situation has gotten so bad that families with young children who benefit from the program visited Capitol Hill this week to beg lawmakers to fund CHIP.
This has forced state governments, which run the program, to scramble. This week, officials in Alabama said they would drop the coverage of 7,000 children and freeze the program to new enrollees on New Year’s Day. That state would have to end its program, which serves 84,000 kids in total, on Feb. 1. Virginia told parents of 68,000 children that its program could end on Jan. 31. Connecticut, Colorado and other states have issued similar warnings. All told, 16 states will run out of CHIP funds by the end of January, and another 21 will run out of money by the end of March, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Republican lawmakers say they will eventually get around to reauthorizing CHIP. First, though, they insist that Democrats must agree to cut other spending to offset some of the cost of the program. For example, they have proposed raising Medicare premiums on affluent retirees and cutting spending on public health programs created by the Affordable Care Act. Democrats have rightly balked at such demands, especially since Republicans just passed a tax bill that will mostly benefit corporations and the wealthiest families in the country while adding more than $1.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. By contrast, CHIP costs just $14 billion a year, or $140 billion or more over a decade.
In dismissing concerns about the program, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah epitomized the degradation of so much of the Republican Party this year. Mr. Hatch, who helped create this program with Senator Edward Kennedy, said on the floor of the Senate, almost sneering sanctimoniously, “the reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore.” Mr. Hatch and his Republican colleagues had no trouble finding boatloads of money to cut taxes on real estate developers, hedge fund managers and corporate chief executives.
This much is clear: Many children stand to lose access to health care if Congress does not act soon. States do not have the wherewithal to bear the full cost of CHIP. While some families who rely on the program might be able to get insurance for their kids through an employer or from the insurance marketplaces created by the A.C.A., many kids will end up losing coverage. CHIP is free or costs much less than private insurance depending on family income and state.
Two Republican lawmakers, Senators Lamar Alexander and Susan Collins, on Wednesday signaled that Congress would not fund CHIP until early next year. Lawmakers are now expected to head out of town after they pass yet another short-term extension of the larger spending bill needed to avoid a government shutdown.
President Trump and his fellow Republicans were desperate to pass a tax bill by Christmas but seem unconcerned about the more urgent and important work of making sure children can get the health care they need. That will be quite a legacy.
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
I suppose it's fitting -- certainly symbolic -- that the first "social safety net" program to be gutted in order to pay for that tax cut for the rich is a children's health program.
It's an appropriate Christmas Tale: Ebeneezer Scrooge and Tiny Tim... but this time there's no happy ending. Tiny Tim will die so that Scrooge can be even wealthier.
Whoops!
More inaccurate fear mongering from the left. So sad they have to resort to making up scare stories because they are so devoid of actual ideas that voters' support.
Program fully funded through March, simply waiting on the annual budgeting process to be completed.
wow, sean really?
No one has lost their insurance. Both parties have committed to fully funding the program moving forward.
Those are facts.
Program fully funded through ?, simply waiting on GOP extortion process to be completed
Read the seed, please...
Congress provides short-term funding for children's health insurance
I don't necessarily agree that Democrats don't have any ideas, but it's definitely fear mongering.
The seed has been "overtaken by events".
The voters who support Trump's ideas are morally bankrupt and socially insane.
lol, you believe it because Nancy Pelosi told you to believe it, that's embarassing bob!
And that would be different how? Nancy Pelosi (AKA the Borg Queen) says it, it goes out to all the liberal drones and they obey.
Can't recall anything Pelosi has ever said. I do recall everything Trump has said and done and it all sickens me.
You don't live in the United States, do you?
we will have to wait for her to pass to find out what's in it.
sick liberals is how we know trump is doing the "right thing.
the pun is just for fun
Good it’s about time we return the responsibility for the children to the parents. I’m sick of carrying the weight of these deadbeats.
The theory behind this program is that children should not lack health care just because their parents cannot afford it. Even if the parents are "deadbeats", the children are not.
When you meet your maker Dean, are you going to say, "I kept those deadbeats from receiving heath care for their six year olds." as if it is something to brag about ?
Yeah....I'm with John on this one.
The parents can spend less on big screen tv’s and beer and pay for their own kids rather than sticking their neighbors with the bill for their kids. Maybe they will think twice before spitting out another one when they realize the true cost.
Tomorrow is Christmas Eve. The three spirits will start visiting you about 8 pm.
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
You people do not understand. Capitalism creates the kind of wealth disparity that requires "government" intervention in a large modern, complex society. It is a fact of life, it is the nature of our economic and social system.
The idea that the poor should fend for themselves in such a society is not just borderline insanity, it is total insanity.
Libertarians are for lack of a better word, deluded, ---- if they persist they gradually become the scum of the earth.
Libertarian ideals will NEVER be applied in the US as anything more than a fantasy wish list, because they ignore the plain facts of our economy and our society.
So why do you persist? Do you just like to rage against reality?
and many people do. some can't, or won't , or are not able to.
what does that have to do with providing health care for children?
You're all heart, Dean, Merry Christmas!
Some are lifted out of the poverty that capitalism creates , and some are not.
Libertarians want a dog eat dog society, that most surely would be a very unpleasant place.
And your spin on abortion is a catch 22. Conservatives never think through all of the ramifications of their emotionally (religiously) based insanities and child-like, simplistic world view.
me me me me ME me me me me ME me me me me ME me me me me ME me me me me ME
Dude. From one rich white guy to another, just stop. Really.
If your kid's school had a fundraiser and asked you for $100 to help cover medical expenses of some 3rd grader with cancer, you'd break your arm getting your wallet out so fast. That's what CHIP costs the half of us that actually pay taxes like you and me. About $95/yr. The only thing that pisses you off about CHIP is that they don't ask you first and liberals like it. Oh...and included in that $100, we're going to vaccinate all these other kids so they don't infect your kid with measles or hepatitis or polio or some other dread disease.
And you're trying to convince us you think this is a bad idea. Please.
Yes. But not the kind of intervention proposed by most of the left.
OK... You agree that something is needed to counterbalance the intrinsically unequal results of capitalism... but you don't like what the left proposes. Fine.
What do you propose? (Or what non-left solutions have you heard that you find acceptable?)
Personally, I don't know of any Pope of leftish ideas who tells me what to think; there is no leftish equivalent to Fox News. So I can't distinguish a leftish solution for inequality from a rightish solution to the same problem. And I really don't care. Policies that address the intrinsic inequality of capitalism are good, regardless of who invents them.
Yes. Generally regulation
Correct. The tax code is one of the worst ways to combat inequality.
Raising educational standards, for a start. Until we talk about closing the ability gap, everything else is just fantasy.
Rachel Maddow and MSNBC, but that's a discussion for another day.
OK. That's a good start. Pragmatically, how do you see accomplishing that objective?
Leftish suggestions might be improving teachers (training and pay), and smaller classes. In other words... spend more money. That may not be satisfactory for rightish people...
How do you figure this? Doesn't more and better training improve competence? Don't greater rewards draw more competent and more dedicated personnel?
I'd hire Teacher C who is only semi-literate, but will work for just room and board.
No. It's a rejection of an illegitimate offer. If you want a conversation, you ask open questions, not closed ones.
I shall. I assume that at each occasion you will Reply in Bad Faith , as you did here. I shall spotlight it each time.
I neither know nor care. Nor does anyone else. Your behavior is so formatted, so predictable, that I doubt you interest anyone.
I didn't say that. You know I didn't say that. You are posting in Bad Faith .
Preface...I was a public school teacher and a certified administrator. My wife was a public school teacher. My daughter is a public school teacher. We've been down the depths of the rabbit hole.
Leftish solutions about more training and more money are traditional tired claptrap based on the premise that any problem can be solved with more govt money. Rightish solutions about vouchers and school competition are traditional tired claptrap based on the idea that competition will drive better outcomes in a non-competitive public service. History has shown both to be incorrect.
The problem is mismanagement. I don't think we need more money until we start spending the current money more effectively. Public schools have become less about instruction than they are about crowd management. We need to think differently.
The first rule I would lay down is that educational reform must be supported by research and implemented on trial basis before widespread adoption. We do this in almost every other avenue of life, and yet it is as foreign as the surface of Mars in our public schools. Look at the objection to Common Core math problems, for example. We have people who literally don't know their asymptotes from a hole in the ground screaming authoritatively about how math should be taught....and we're listening to them....because emotion is more important than facts.
For about 30 years now, we've been using dropout rate as a primary measure of how well poor or "at risk" kids are served. So to avoid getting in trouble, schools have simply dumbed down the curriculum so that practically anybody can pass. So we've spent decades now graduating kids who can barely function, and by doing so telling those families that their child is succeeding. We've got to shift our accountability measure on to things that matter more than whether or not a kid shows up for 12 years. I would have us look at a testing program more along the lines of what they do in the UK, where there are not as many tests, but they are more binding. If you don't pass the tests, you don't move on until you do. We don't pretend you're doing well when you're not learning anything.
I would have us dramatically expand online learning for K-12 kids. Smarter kids could work faster, and we would alleviate the crowding in the traditional classrooms. Texas now has a computer based "credit recovery" program for kids who have failed classes in traditional environments. What they are finding is that when you don't waste their entire day with institutionalized crowd control, they do quite well academically.
We also need to change curriculum to address the needs of the kids that actually show up in real life, as opposed to the hypothetical kids we like to imagine will show up. For example....my daughter currently teaches two sections of Algebra II. Not the pre-AP variety for kids headed to engineering schools, but the regular variety for kids who aren't very good at math. Now, she spends the better part of 6 months teaching these kids things that are required for kids headed to college to study biochemistry or engineering. News flash...none of these kids are going to do that. If you're in "regular" Algebra II as a junior, that ship has sailed and you are headed down a different career path. So let's teach these kids something that will be useful to them as adults, like how to invest money, how their credit score works, how to accumulate a couple of million dollars over their lifetime, whether to buy or lease a car, how to finance a business, etc, etc.
The problem with all of this is that you're going to need to get career educators who have made a life out of explaining why the things they keep doing year after year don't work to actually change their habits instead of just do the same thing again. I'm not optimistic.
And I do agree with your comment.
You may have it with my blessings. Use it freely and correctly.
I agree entirely with the principle... but from experience, I know how this works: hired-gun "experts" will provide testimony both in favor and against every suggestion... and its opposite...
I appreciate your listing some concrete items. That's rare on NT, where generalities abound...
I agree that passing kids who don't have the level is foolishness. But of course, that begs the question of "why" they don't have the level. "Don't pass kids who don't have the level" isn't practical when very few have the level.
Online learning certainly can't hurt, but I'd be wary of it being used as an excuse for cutting budgets ever lower. It is a simple fact that smaller classes give better results, and that's a straightforward budget matter. I can all too easily imagine "experts" declaring that "with the help of this online system, one teacher can easily manage fifty students..."
I agree about multiple tracks in order to tailor schooling to real-world needs. (I taught in a "professional training" school a long time ago.) I have two provisos: First, there must be means for the kids to switch between tracks. Multiple tracks work best when the child gets oriented while still quite young, but that also sometimes leads to dead-ends. There must be means to correct erroneous orientation. Second, the "blue-collar" tracks must be promoted and valorized. If they are seen as "dumping grounds for the laggards", then that is what they will be, and will serve neither the kids nor the companies that need skilled hands.
I'm a great deal less pessimistic than you, about teachers. Yes they are defensive. They are told, all day every day, that they are failing their mission, and that it is their fault and no one else's. That's kinda hard to accept, when they know that it isn't that simple. I think a lot less "blame game" would be a big improvement.
Which is why the trial runs are important. Otherwise you just have ivory tower "experts" pontificating about shit they know nothing about.
Thanks.
It's no more impractical than passing them when they haven't learned anything, but you're right, it would not be practical in the near term. As part of a long term program implemented over a decade or more, it's plausible.
One teacher can manage 50 students (I've done it)....if they're the right students. Look at college classes. AP and honors level students, as often as not, simply need teachers to stay out of the way and provide minimal support. That frees up more teachers to lower class sizes for lower level kids. If we're concerned about districts just cutting staff to save money, simply attach their federal funding to a maximum student/teacher ratio.
I would agree with both of your conditions, but I would go further than that. I would have the kids in the blue collar tracks learning basic accounting, business finance, elementary small business marketing, and entrepreneurship in general. The idea here is that we're not only teaching you how to fix HVAC systems, we're teaching you how to start your own HVAC company if you want to do that someday.
I know a lot of teachers. Yeah, they are defensive, but they are also creatures of habit. They value security over almost everything else, and change represents a threat to that security. The real "blame" IMO lies with the administration and the process for choosing them. They come to their positions with almost no skills other than having taught. Hospitals understand that being a doctor and being a hospital administrator are different skills. Schools don't seem to get it.
We agree.
One teacher can handle a huge number of kids if they're eager to learn. Unfortunately, that's not all of them. So we come to one of the eternal quandaries: should we spend more on the less-enthusiastic kids in order to get them through, or more on the enthusiastic ones, thus producing less graduates but more brilliant ones. This is a choice of society, not just education.
Lurking behind this topic is that of the kids' personal backgrounds. We know that kids with well-educated parents tend to do much better in school than kids from low-education backgrounds. How serious are we about "equal opportunity"?
Yes.
There aren't many professions where the personnel isn't constantly getting additional training. I think that if teachers had constant on-the-job update training, right from the start of their careers, they would not see it as threatening. Your example of online learning is a good example: the teachers need to train on how best to use such a system, and since it's new, there's a very good chance that the theories around it, and the "best practices" that follow, must evolve fairly fast.
Money, again...
Sure. So the idea here is that you've got AP/Honors classes loaded with large (even 'yuuuuge') numbers of kids working on computer based curriculum (think Kahn Academy or Harvard online) where teachers are simply addressing questions as they arise. Kids are watching videos covering whatever topic they're working on, and then taking an online assessment. In reality, advanced kids are doing that now anyway, so let's just go with the flow they're already establishing.
Meanwhile, we've got other kids that need the personal instruction, remediation or other special attention. We've now got more teachers available for that high demand area.
Finally, we've got kids who misbehave for really no other reason than they're bored as f*ck and every single thing in that HS seems juvenile, stupid and unrelated to the real world (they're not entirely wrong, BTW). We let these kids go on the computer learning and get out early every day when they're done...unless they misbehave....in which case they lose that privilege.
I'm not naive enough to believe the idea would be without hiccups, which is why I would want small scale implementation to work out the bugs and get some best practices written. But I think long term this where we're headed anyway, so we may as well ride the wave instead of getting swamped.
Amazing. Let's force people to have children that they can't support, instead of letting the chose to terminate the pregnancy while it is a non functioning human, and if they have them and they can't afford them, well damn, let that fully developed child suffer. [smacks head against the wall]
Sounds good.
That's three fairly distinct teacher specializations, and continuous training for all of them.
How do you see "technical ed /apprenticeship"? There are some European countries that do it well, but France is not among tham.
In fact, it's easy to understand: "Punish the poor for the crime of being poor, by ensuring that they and their children and their children's children to the hundredth generation will forever remain poor!"
It's called either "Christian charity" or "conservatism with a conscience".
MUVA knows that doesn’t happen. That post is a Bad Faith post.
Don't care what anyone throws out there as "truth"! Because the truth is children will have healthcare....period, bottom line.
How do I know? Because there are people like me who have NEVER protested or marched for a cause, but I guarantee you this, we will even if we have to sleep on the concrete steps to the Governor's office.
There is right and there is wrong......and, this would be wrong!
Better pack your sleeping bags then Mango!
won't happen, leno!
Mags....please do not fall into this "sky is falling" nonsense that Hennie Penny and the other hysterical leftists would like you to believe.
There are very few things that will guarantee a politician loses his/her next election. "Kicking 10 million kids off health insurance" is one of those, and they all know it.
They are more likely to vote all of their salaries to $0 than they are to let CHIP fail. The sky is not falling. No sleeping bags required.
Health care should be a right in this country and insurance companies should not be getting one dime of the money meant for health care for American citizens. Health care, and education, should be 100% socialized. A healthy, educated populace is in EVERYONE'S best interest.
And, if we can't afford health insurance for our children, then, find it in the budget by throwing out those subsidies to other countries.
America First and if there is any money left over, then, send it abroad.
Most of our money is already being sent "abroad" to offshore tax havens where white sand beaches are littered with bloated billionaires.
Conservative billionaires spend millions of dollars on think tanks, web sites and media outlets in an ongoing effort to convince the weak minded that being raped in the ass on a daily basis is actually good for you.
People with an abundance can do with their money whatever they want to do. Yea, for them!
I am talking about our give away programs to other countries!
BS!
Tell me I'm wrong.
There you go, again. It is not about anything other than children!
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Your sarcasm is noted.....you feel better now?
No, it is people like you who count on sarcasm to get through the day.
We will talk, again, when you are feeling better. You need a good rest!
So no sympathy for the disenfranchised? No sympathy for those who have lost the ability to work from no fault of their own? No sympathy for those whose jobs went offshore so the money men could make more money? No sympathy seems to be the new conservative mantra.
Non-military foreign aid is less than 1% of the Federal budget.
Funny how blue states tend to end up paying for the red republican states shortcomings.
For me, it's more like being convinced that the Republican party actively have my WORST interests at heart. They have devolved into nothing more than a gang of corporate thugs. This ain't your daddy's Republican party, Tex, they are a gross distortion of it.
Ummm............ Google... ????
Healthcare is a natural right in every developed country... except... the richest of them all...
Seems that the idea of paying it forward never enters some peoples mind. The ''I got mine, so screw the poor kids'' is their motto.
Pretty damn sad.
Agreed, Kavika.
That's not really supported with facts. Conservatives are generally more generous with charity. It's the violent forfeiture of income that we abhor.
What many people seem to forget, or perhaps don't understand, is that our children, all of them, all over the world, are our only true asset. They will be the leaders and do'ers of the world tomorrow. They are an investment that mere money can't begin to imagine. They will be the earths caregivers of the world when we are no longer here.
We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrowed it from our children and their children for generations to come. It is incumbent upon us all provide the best possible way to insure their good health and to leave the earth in the best condition possible in order for them to survive as we have.
To deny any child the healthcare they need to survive and maintain a healthy life based on their parents ability to pay, or their ethnic background or religion, is truly unforgivable. I know that there are many who feel that it is no sweat off their back if a child dies from lack of necessary care, but, KARMA is really ugly sometimes.
"The government" doesn't decide anything. The party in power decides what government agencies will do. Republicans care about billionaires; they do not care about poor children. So "the government" will take money from most Americans to give to the already-rich, while no longer giving health care to poor children.
That is how a "Republican government" behaves.
Hold on, Mr. Nelson.........
I am a Republican and darn proud of it.
I and my fellow Republicans have worked our asses off for all children for years whether it was a Republican or Democrat in the WH.
This issue will be handled in the interest of children. Children who can't speak for themselves.
How did you get to be so naïve? Being proud of being a republican in todays world is like being proud of being a serial axe murderer.
We shall see...
..
because greed is a powerful motor.
The greed that ensures that wealth is created also ensures that that wealth is stolen and hoarded by a tiny minority.
The robber barons of old are still alive and well (off), and still using slash-and-burn tactics that poison and impoverish society. The tragedy of the commons is embodied in our current president.
Capitalism has been the greatest relief for poverty in the history of humanity.
There’s no telepathic insight required to reach the necessary and unavoidable conclusion that [this poster] doesn’t really believe what he claims to believe. It’s the simplest explanation, so it merits consideration. And none of the other possible explanations for his claims withstands scrutiny. This is where facts, evidence, and reason matter here — the facts, evidence and reason all point to the conclusion that [this poster] is arguing in bad faith. He’s not saying what he thinks is true, or what he “believes” is true. He’s just going to bat for his side or his team or his tribe in some weird attempt to redefine reality by sheer force of will.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Apparently not.
You're frothing...
I thought Obamacare was supposed to solve all these healthcare problems.
There’s no telepathic insight required to reach the necessary and unavoidable conclusion that [this poster] doesn’t really believe what he claims to believe. It’s the simplest explanation, so it merits consideration. And none of the other possible explanations for his claims withstands scrutiny. This is where facts, evidence, and reason matter here — the facts, evidence and reason all point to the conclusion that [this poster] is arguing in bad faith. He’s not saying what he thinks is true, or what he “believes” is true. He’s just going to bat for his side or his team or his tribe in some weird attempt to redefine reality by sheer force of will.
Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”[27]
Reality: Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.
Despite spending nearly $1.8 trillion in new spending from 2014 to 2023, the law falls far short of universal coverage. Indeed, Obamacare is projected by the CBO to leave 31 million uninsured after a decade of full implementation.[ 28]
oh stop with your nonsense. you can do better.
There’s no telepathic insight required to reach the necessary and unavoidable conclusion that [this poster] doesn’t really believe what he claims to believe. It’s the simplest explanation, so it merits consideration. And none of the other possible explanations for his claims withstands scrutiny. This is where facts, evidence, and reason matter here — the facts, evidence and reason all point to the conclusion that [this poster] is arguing in bad faith. He’s not saying what he thinks is true, or what he “believes” is true. He’s just going to bat for his side or his team or his tribe in some weird attempt to redefine reality by sheer force of will.
It was actually to be a better way but racist conservative obstruction ruined that.
There is nothing to discuss here, really, it's just a simple question and you are either a yes or a no: Do we, as a society, ensure that all children receive proper health care? If you are a yes, we can discuss how to best go about accomplishing this; if you're a no, you are a cruel, heartless person whose opinion on the matter is worthless.
No.
When my young Son was diagnosed with Metastatic Sarcoma we were advised up front that it was terminal. He was treated by the best Specialist available, who worked with other Drs. around the world on this disease and taught others how to diagnose it. My Son was the youngest person to have ever gotten that type of cancer, as it is usually a disease that shows up in elderly people or those with a low immune system. My Son was a very healthy boy, and the Dr was very surprised that he had such a disease at such an early age. There were only 500 cases of it reported each year, so it was very rare. As my Son was so young, and in such good health, the Specialist gave his at least 6 months at the most, as older patients and those with poor immune systems usually did not live much past 6 weeks after being diagnosed.
This type of cancer is one that feeds on muscle tissue, and spreads through the body through the blood. It first attacked the muscle in his left thigh, then his right lung, a part of which was removed. Then it stuck his left lung, a part of which was removed. Then it attacked his abdominal muscle wall, and it was not operable, as the results of the very toxic chemo therapy to combat the disease had made his tissues very week, and they could not heal. These many surgeries occurred over a period of 18 months, and he willingly endured them in order to give the Dr time to study more about the disease itself, how it spread and how best to treat it.
Not long after he was diagnosed he wanted to visit the cancer ward of the City of Hope, and saw how the young children there were being treated for their various types of cancer, and how they also suffered from their treatments, and how it also affected their lives. That is why he was willing to undergo the many surgeries and chemo treatments, to hopefully, help the Dr find a cure for the kind of rare cancer he had so that others like him would not have to die from it, and perhaps stand the chance to live a normal life.
The last thing that he asked me to do for him was to ask others to donate to St Jude's Hospital, to help their researchers there to find a way to save children from the vicious killer that takes the life of so many children. It was his dying wish that one day, like many other diseases that are no longer a threat to humans, cancer would join their ranks. Over the years my family and I have donated to St Jude's, in honor of his memory, and of his dying wish.
It is people list us here, who can help to one day to make his dying wish, and that of others who suffer from the disease, come true.
Just my own thoughts.