Jordan Thomas: Making A Connection Between Golf & Health Care Rights
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
54 comments
Credit: Rob Matre
Our friend and amazing photographer Rob Matre alerted me to the story of a remarkable young man named Jordan Thomas. Jordan is a junior now at College of Charleston, but his journey to that point is captivating and impressive.
Jordan is an avid golfer and fisherman, but does both today thanks in part due to two prosthetic legs. When he was 16 on a family vacation in Florida, he lept off the boat to go SCUBA diving. Unfortunately, the wake from the boat drew him directly into the propellers - immediately cutting off his legs. Fortunately, his parents were there and are both doctors. They stopped the bleeding as best they could and got Jordan to the hospital.
Following two weeks' worth of surgeries in the hospital, he was outfitted with modern prosthetic legs that allow him to still do the sports he loves. During that time in the hospital, though, he visited with other amputees - particularly children that will require multiple prostheses during their growing years.
Some of the children were without parents and many without health care. The overwhelming cost of a modern, functional prosthetic was too much of a burden to afford. Simultaneously, many health insurance providers cover prosthetic technology up to $5000 - $20,000 shy of the cost of Jordan's prosthetic legs. For children, having lesser technology can inhibit their ability to learn to walk, play with other children, and enjoy as normal of a life as is possible. What's more is that children require new prostheses every 18 months as they grow and their bones change, creating mounting expenses for families.
Jordan set out to do something about it by starting the Jordan Thomas Foundation. His foundation has raised $400,000 through the sale of bracelets, donations, and his annual charity golf tournament to help bridge the gap between the cost of modern prostheses for children and the amount that insurance providers are willing to pay. The money raised to date is helping three children have the security of growing up into adulthood with modern prosthetic legs.
As noted in the CNN piece on Jordan, there is now a debate in Washington over legislation introduced by New Jersey Democrat Robert Andrews called the Prosthetic and Orthotic Parity Act. The legislation would require health insurers to pay for prosthetic legs in the same way they do knee surgeries - dismissing the claim by insurers that prosthetics are more cosmetic than functional. Seventeen states already have similar laws on the books and studies suggest that the impact on premiums for the insured is zero.
Regardless of the outcome of that proposed legislation, the Foundation continues to raise money. The annual golf tournament to benefit the foundation is in Chattanooga, Tennessee on October 5 and some slots are still available. And Jordan is a 1.4 handicap, so you'll be playing with one hell of a golfer and human being.
Jordan joins Larry King Live this evening to be introduced as on of the CNN Heroes, but before that, he joined me on The 19th Hole Golf Show to tell his story connecting golf and the health care debate in this country.
The audio of the interview is below as well in a media player. You can download the interview as an MP3 here.
0 recs |
54 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This is nothing short of an incredible story, politics aside.
by Old Man Par on Aug 27, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
VERY cool story…until CNN and the politicians got involved…which led RB to write “Health Care Rights”
HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT. If it was – doctors would be obligated BY LAW to do what they do…prosthetics companies wold be obligated BY LAW to make custom prosthetics at no cost to the patient…same for drug companies, medical equipment and machinery….
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There are other countries where it is a right. And there’s the rub.
by Old Man Par on Aug 27, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other countries aren’t under the US Constitution.
Unless a country is completely under the control of the government and the people do not earn any kind of paycheck, but are given housing, food, transportation, etc by that government – there is no such thing as a “right” to health care. Try not to pick Canada or the UK or any other EU nation – it ain’t true there, either.
However – the best health care system in the world – here in the US – is set up so that anybody who needs emergency care can get it – even if they are not a citizen.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, and our system rewards physicians for treatments, not results. And insurers pay doctors to a standard that actually doesn’t allow them to recoup costs. And we don’t have enough supply of general practice doctors because we don’t reward those practitioners for having the knowledge required to be a generalist rather than a niche specialist.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you think that having the government in charge of how much doctors and nurses and staff get paid – not to mention pharmaceutical companies (R&D and testing aren’t cheap) and medical equipment companies is the way to go ?
The biggest cost in modern health care is governmental red tape.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s actually fundamentally untrue. Medicare/aid has the lowest administrative cost of any health insurer in the United States.
And health insurers already determine the reimbursement rate for doctors. They’re motivated by bottom line and profits. In fact, UNH is in some deep stuff for undercutting what they would pay.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isnt that interesting ? The first thing your mind went to was a bloated, inefficient government system that doesn’t work. Medicare/medicaid are government programs – not what I was talking about. The government puts so much general paperwork on people in the medical business that the costs just for DOING the paperwork runs into the billions each year.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will say that HIPPA is a great example of the paperwork burden that you’re describing.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“best health care system in the world?”
According the World Health Organization, the US ranks #37.
The real question is the US the best health care system despite having the 50th highest life expectency (source: CIA Factbook),the 43rd best infant mortality rate (source: AMA) the third highest survival rate for cancer behind France and Japan, source: AMA), etc is this: do we have the BEST or the MOST EXPENSIVE?
I love my country as much as anyone but I don’t let jingoism override objective fact.
by Old Man Par on Aug 27, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
here’s the test I look for – of the countries ranked 1-36 – how many of those countries have people from every corner of the planet flying to them for treatments, operations, tests, etc ? Maybe Sweden because of their lax laws on experimentation ?
the WHO is about as objective as the IOC.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, a lot of people go to the UK France for treatment. And to Germany. They have very fine institutions there — like the Pasteur Institute that discovered the HIV virus, the Sorbonne, etc. The Brits discovered MRI. The Germans the link between HPV and cervical cancer.
“the WHO is about as objective as the IOC.”
Ahhh, I see. Now let’s see how you dismiss the AMA and the CIA as liberally-biased sources.
by Old Man Par on Aug 27, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The AMA is a private organization..and how did you get to the CIA ? It is an American organization – not international.
Aside from experimental treatments that are not approved for use in the US – you won’t find many Americans going anywhere outside the US for health care – but people fly in…or just cross the borders…to get into the US system.
The Brits discovered the MRI – but how long do the citizens have to wait to get a scan ? Months, if they are lucky.
The German’s are still experimenting to find a workable solution for their breakthroughs. Nobody has a cure for cancer.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Court, you have never heard of the CIA Factbook? It’s hardly secret and has been on the Internet as long as the ’net has been open to the public.
by Old Man Par on Aug 28, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah – an internet publication – written in stone, eh ? :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to get all philosophical here, but the concept of natural rights is one that really should define the debate about access to health care. There are rights granted by man and then so called natural rights, or if you want to use our Founding Fathers’ language, inalienable rights. Life and liberty are among those. The right to live – extended far enough – implies access to health care to sustain life.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sure thing Ryan – so where do you get the right to force another human being to give you his services for free ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think anyone is saying the services are free.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU said health care is a RIGHT. If it is a RIGHT, you can’t charge anybody for it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I said access to health care is a right. Not health care itself.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a difference between granting someone access to health care and preventing a person from accessing health care. By your logic, Uncle Sam should be shipping me a new AR-15 so I can exercise my Second Amendment right.
In reality, the government must not prevent me from exercising my Second Amendment right. If you want to make health care as an extension of life and liberty, then the government must not prevent me from accessing health care. It is under no obligation to provide it to me. Just like the government must not stand in the way of my First Amendment rights, but it is not obligated to provide me a printing press to churn out my radical Constitutionalist rhetoric.
That doesn’t mean that as a society, we shouldn’t strive for people to be cared for. Unfortunately, in the current debate, we’ve totally lost sight of why health care has become so expensive in the last 40 years. Instead of trying to fix those problems, we’ve just resigned ourselves to grabbing our ankles in the broken system and providing everyone who is uninsured government-funded care at extremely high cost.
In my opinion, that’s totally backward thinking. I also strongly object to the idea that health care is a Constitutional right, though I understand your sentiment and the point you’re making.
by Double Eagle on Aug 27, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not talking about rights granted through the Constitution, though. That’s a different philosophical question altogether.
Your logic about the second amendment is kind of faulty. First, it’s about a governed militia. Second, it’s not that the government should not prevent you from exercising your right. The preamble of the Constitution says one of the government’s goals is to “provide for common defense” (2nd amendment) AND balance that with “promoting the general welfare” (something like health care access).
I didn’t say anything in my writing about the government having to provide health care. I said that affording individuals access to health care is their responsibility (using my logic).
There’s a huge difference between health care (single payor) and access to health care (honest reform about cost controls, etc, although that’s not the only problem :) ).
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow – you just failed Constitution 101. You have to read past the preamble to understand “general welfare”. You can’t take an introduction and run in any direction you want to with it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s my problem with your thinking, RB. You seem to have the idea that everybody should get every medical need/want/desire they have taken care of at no cost or responsibility to themselves. Where does the responsibility of the patient come in ?
Why is it you think that drug companies just wave a magic wand and their drugs appear out of nowhere at no cost to them ? These companies spend billions every year trying to come up with cures from the common cold sore to cancer to AIDS to…whatever. Same goes for medical technology and machinery. These companies stay in business and manage to turn a profit by charging for their work. They also provide millions of dollars in their products to people who can’t afford it.
The government does not have a single dollar of its own. Every penny in the federal checkbook (constantly overdrawn by our spend happy Congress)(BOTH sides of the aisle – before you think I like what is going on up there) comes from the TAXPAYERS.
Turning the system over to the government – which draws 90% of it’s funding from 10% of the people – is insane. You cannot tax and spend into prosperity or health. This is where any theory you can come up with that is government based falls on its face.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are completely missing what I have been saying this entire thread. Completely.
I have said that I feel it is a right of people to have ACCESS to health care. That doesn’t mean free health care. That means that they should have access to quality care at a price that is not exorbitant. That’s it.
Nor did I suggest that the only or even best way to ensure this is through single-payer, government run health care. I don’t believe in that system for a country like ours, whose population and ethnic diversity do not lend itself well to that system.
Furthermore, access to health care isn’t the only problem we face in reforming health care. As I mentioned, we need more general practice doctors, tort reform, electronic & portable medical records, and a couple of other things.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s a news blast for you – everybody DOES have access to the health care system. Hell – this country even gives access to people who are here illegally !
There isn’t a single person in this country who gets turned away when they have a problem.
Now, I’m going to hear you talk about treatments and operations that cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars and how everybody should just be GIVEN those treatments and/or operations even if they can’t afford it. You want everybody else to pay for it – that’s making everybody else responsible for your problems.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. Everybody does not affordable and honest access to health care. That’s the point of insurance. That’s what access to health care is. The emergency room IS NOT. The fact that so many people take advantage of our system – citizen or not – because of a 1986 law really annoys me and it is actually a big source of our medical conundrum now.
I want people to have access to affordable health insurance because it will actually improve medical costs. Fewer people will roll up to the emergency room claiming to be poor and unable to pay while wielding Blackberrys.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Say it ain't so.
The Second Amendment is NOT about a governed militia. The Supreme Court ruled last year in D.C. vs Heller that the Second Amendment represents an individual right. Those who have studied the Constitution and the writings of the founders have known that for a long, long time.
Providing for common defense isn’t about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment wasn’t ratified until something like four years after the original document (though, there was certainly support for including the right to bear arms in the original). Instead, the common defense refers to the ability for Congress to raise an army (calling forth the citizen militia) and maintain the navy. Interestingly, some argue our standing army is unconstitutional – funding appropriated is only allowed to be used for a period of two years, but of course we get around that by funding the military yearly.
The general welfare and commerce clauses have been abused over the decades to do some really bad things in our government. Promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing for the general welfare.
by Double Eagle on Aug 27, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the 2nd amendment is about a governed militia. It says it in the language. Antonin Scalia is a selective strict constructionist. It is about the right of the people to organize themselves against the government with arms in the event of a need for uprising.
Back to the language about promoting the general welfare. As I’ve saying, promoting access to health care is different than providing it directly. I’m advocating for promoting access.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Directly from the SCOTUS decision
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You could not be more wrong in your assessment that the Second Amendment is about a “governed” militia. Part of the reason the Second Amendment exists is to resist tyranny and it’s hard to do that when the right hinges on service to those who may become tyrannical. A “governed” right is not a right at all. The use of “The People” in the Constitution refers to you and me, not you and me as long as Rahm Emanuel thinks it’s OK.
As for providing access to health care, court already made the point in this thread that there is no denial of access to health care in this country. No one is refused emergency care (except in a small number of highly publicized cases where emergency room personnel shirked their responsibilities and someone died). The only limiting factor is cost, and that’s because there’s a cost associated with it. As I’ve said, the current reform doesn’t do anything to address the costs, so I’m not in favor of any of it. Breaking the economic barrier down should not be achieved by taxing the rich and spreading the costs out over everyone.
by Double Eagle on Aug 28, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I goofed on the language. It’s a “well-regulated” militia. Which actually intended to be state based militias, which were those largely responsible for maintaining the weak Continental Army. Particularly, the Virginia militia was very critical. The 2nd Amendment is not exclusively an individual right. Sorry, it’s not. Plenty of legal scholars will tell you that.
Actually, current proposed reform does hit costs. As I mentioned to court, emergency medical care guaranteed by 1986 legislation is one of the biggest issues in controlling health care costs. People claim not to have the money to pay when they visit the emergency room. By giving them better access to affordable and honest insurance, then they wouldn’t visit the emergency room as often and would dramatically drive down the cost of care.
As I also mentioned to court, there are other critical areas that will drive down cost and cut out mistake. Tort reform isn’t in the bill, though I wish it were. The bill, though, does feature incentives to give better compensation for general practice doctors & for investments in electronic medial records – both of which will drive down costs as well.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either something is an individual right or it isn't
Exclusivity has nothing to do with it. You can’t say, well it’s not just an individual right because they were also interested in maintaining the weak continental army. A right of The People is a right of The People. The positive side effects are 100% irrelevant. They were also extremely interested in preventing the tyranny that they had just shed blood to get out from under.
The Supreme Court declared it an individual right in DC v Heller. I can point you to plenty of Constitutional scholars who say it is. Read anything by Halbrook, Lott, Kopel, Young, Hardy, and others. I can point you to writings of the founders that support that.
Don’t let societal dogma about guns cloud the history of the situation. I hate to be so blunt because I have a lot of respect for you, but on this topic you’re completely wrong.
by Double Eagle on Aug 28, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s assume for a minute that you are right about the 2nd Amendment – you’re not – but let’s pretend. You just proved that the Federal government has no right to stop people from owning guns when you put it in the hands of the states.
If you give the government charge over something that it cannot regulate properly and cannot “pay for” to use politician speak, very soon you will have that same government telling people what they can and cannot have…which is what you have in Canada and the UK.
It doesn’t work – plain and simple. If you want to take the Constitution out of the argument – you CAN’T argue the nuts and bolts costs of what is being proposed.
This isn’t about health care – this is about control.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not even going to pretend that makes any sense.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
meaning what RB said…not Eagle.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is SUCH a cool picture !!
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It really is. Rob did a great job – like usual.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jordan Thomas is an amazing young man!
As a founding board member of the Jordan Thomas Foundation, I am so proud of this young man. He is to be commended for his courage and his work on behalf of all amputees. Make sure and check out the foundation website at: Jordanthomasfoundation.org ~~~Cheers, Jeffrey Dendy, Chattanooga, TN
by Jeffrey Dendy on Aug 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wow – Chattanooga – that adds another star to his resume. Not many flat golf courses in Chattanooga.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 27, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For those of you who agree with the insurance companies that prostetics are cosmetic and should not be covered by insurance should come on down to San Antonio and check out the Center for the Intrepid and Brook Army Medical Center. The insurance companies would have you believe that the DoD and the VA are wasting your taxpayer dollars and private donations on the cutting edge technology used there. Thanks to their efforts and the dedication of these servicemen and women we are able to retain soldiers who would otherwise be put out of the service. To see the determination and the results of that determination is inspiring.
by sports medic on Aug 27, 2009 10:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you
Prosthetics are certainly not cosmetic.
I was out at the driving range Sunday which is right along the 9th hole at my course. I watched as an older couple came along and I noticed that the man had two prosthetic legs. Without those, not only would he be confined to a wheelchair, but he wouldn’t likely be able to get some semblance of enjoyment out of a game be obviously likes. I don’t know the circumstances that led to that situation for him, but there’s no question in my mind that prosthetic limbs improve quality of life for people.
On the general issue of care for veterans, in my opinion, health care might not be a Constitutional right for citizens, but no veteran should ever go without health care. Good lifetime care should be a benefit provided in exchange for service to all veterans.
by Double Eagle on Aug 27, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We make a guarantee to our vets that if you come back from service that we will take care of you like you took care of us. When we fail in that promise, it’s pretty freakin’ embarrassing.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm – interesting logic, RB. You want to turn the health care system over to a government that you just said can’t even take care of the relatively small number of men and women who get injured serving in the military.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You keep saying I want to turn over the health care system to the feds. Can you actually find where in this thread that I have said that? Because I haven’t.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re not thinking through where what you’re asking for has to go. There is only one group of people who have the power to force private companies to do one thing or another – the government.
That power isn’t legal – it isn’t constituional – but that hasn’t been stopping them since the days of FDR and LBJ.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the ole “commerce clause” that grants them the authority. You have to give it to the Founding Fathers like Hamilton that were able to influence the language of the Constitution to create vagaries that would be exploited two hundred years later in ways they never could have imagined.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wrong again – the commerce clause is what has been bastardized since FDR, and that’s where people come up with this nonsense about the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”.
The powers of the Federal government are enumerated in the Constitution specifically to STOP it from doing the things they are doing.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then your gripe really is with the interpretation of the 10th amendment.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you need another reason ? There is no “interpretation” – the 10th amendment is pretty darn clear.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, every part of the Constitution is up to interpretation. Marbury v. Madison defined that.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If an insurance company says that prosthetics are cosmetic – you probably shouldn’t put your money into a policy with them.
medic – how about being specific when you talk about “insurance companies” – they aren’t all the same.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True enough. The kicker is that you don’t normally read the fine print for amputee coverage when you select a policy. Not an excuse, just how it is.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
very true. maybe Jordan’s organization will get a chance to make a point like that to the public. prosthetics may not be a pleasant thought, but they are a real possibility in a society where car accidents are so prevalent.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Aug 28, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, a couple million people in the US are amputees. Around 25K are children.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 28, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
