Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow,you know the smallest details of this other families life...
So if I have this correct,you want the state to pay for people's care,but not care for the people who have 'enough' money,as decided by your standards.
You try sitting next to someone for six hours a week for six years while your husbands/wives are getting therapies and you'd be surprised at what the spouses will talk about. As for the other statement, you're being deliberately obtuse.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 09-17-2011 at 08:46 AM..
You try sitting next to someone for six hours a week for six years while your husbands/wives are getting therapies and you'd be surprised at what the spouses will talk about. As for the other statement, you're being deliberately obtuse.
So six years of treatment wouldn't have cost them a small fortune?
Obtuse?Perhaps,just pointing out what seems to be an issue with your beliefs in regards to government paying.
Not a liberal and I do think John Edwards is a slime ball (same as Pat Robertson) but he didn't divorce his wife when she was ill.
No, but it may not have been, so embarrassing for his wife.........an affair is just as bad. Pat Robertson best hope this illness, is not in his future or at least hope his wife sticks to the vows of "Through sickness and health".
Can't believe he would make a comment, this just encourages people to not stand beside their spouse. Now we will have 65-85 year olds running around having affairs and addicted to Viagra.UGGGGGGGGGGGGH
So six years of treatment wouldn't have cost them a small fortune?
Obtuse?Perhaps,just pointing out what seems to be an issue with your beliefs in regards to government paying.
We paid for the same treatments out of pocket for six years. I know exactly what they cost. I should type slow so you'll understand this: I have no issue with the government paying for treatments for those who are truly needy. My issue is with people who can well afford them but play games to hide assets so they don't have to pay.
When my brother's wife went in a unit for violent, early onset Alzheimer's patients he sold their cottage to help pay for the care. Some people call that stupid that he didn't shift assets around to protect their second home from going for medical costs, but we call it the right thing to do. And in keeping with the theme of this thread, he visited her every single day for three years until she died at age 50. He took his marriage vows seriously. Pat Robertson was making excuses for the man he was counseling and giving all others in that position the idea that it's okay to break your vows when the going gets tough. Not right for a supposed man of God.
I'm not going to judge one way or another on this. I think it's more noble of course to keep the vows no matter what except of course for the 3 A's -- abuse, addiction, adultery, maybe some would add a 4th "A" for when the spouse doesn't know who you are and thinks you're a stranger and forgot about the marriage themselves.
Although deep down I think the Alzheimers patient doesn't forget their spouse, they would feel abandoned if they quit coming around at least to visit.
Is it better you screw around on your spouse with Alzheimers,become bitter about your religion and feel the person is already dead OR to divorce your spouse?
Seems most seem to think it better to screw other people,become bitter and think your spouse is gone already.
Is it better you screw around on your spouse with Alzheimers,become bitter about your religion and feel the person is already dead OR to divorce your spouse?
Seems most seem to think it better to screw other people,become bitter and think your spouse is gone already.
Both are sins for a supposed strong conservative "Christian". Pat Robertson should advocate neither. And the person who commits adultery is not the one Biblically authorized to file for divorce. The person being cheated on is.
So the woman with Alzheimer's is biblically allowed to divorce. The man is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UGGGGGGGGGGGGH
