Healthcare is a Basic Human Right

[vraiblonde]

Thus the argument to keep the government out of the health insurance industry.

 

[Lurk]

Some people believe that the government should empower a panel to establish the return on investment, others believe that should be between the patient or next of kin and the medical community.

Fox News Channel's most recent addition, Zeke Emanuel, has some very explicit ideas about that. It's the basis for Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" if you want to read some of his articles.

 

[PsyOps]

Whoever pays, decides.

Yup... the evil of socialized medicine.

 

[PsyOps]

Because the family was / is running on emotions, not facts like the doctors.

When the doctors tell you that your Aunt Maybelline has zero brain activity after the car accident, you unplug the machine.. You don't spend 10 arguing about it.

So what? It's their child, why would emotions be involved? There obviously wasn't "zero brain activity" when the child was born; otherwise the American doctors wouldn't have stepped up and provided a possible solution. And you know, I'm not suggesting "unplugging the machine" isn't the best course to take. I'm all for it, as long as the right people are making that ultimate decision. And I don't think it should be left up to the government. When you have socialist countries like Britain, they aren't going to decide in your best interest; they are going to decide in their best interest - the bottom line. And you even stipulated that several posts back.

 

[PsyOps]

His life was over when he was born,

You keep pumping this fallacy out there. You are either lying or just misinformed.

Who is Charlie Gard, what is the disease he suffers from and what has been decided?

Charlie is a 10-month old patient in intensive care at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London.

On August 4, 2016, he was born a "perfectly healthy" baby at full term and at a "healthy weight". After about a month, however, Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, noticed that he was less able to lift his head and support himself than other babies of a similar age.

Doctors discovered he had a rare inherited disease - infantile onset encephalomyopathy mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).

The condition causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

In October, after he had became lethargic and his breathing shallow, he was transferred to the Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

Get informed and read about the rest of it. He had a chance at survival had the hospital and government not stepped in, and the parents were allowed to seek out alternative treatment.

This baby is dead because of stubborn, inept doctors and politicians that took the rights of the parents away to take care of their own child. In any other circumstances, this would be child abuse and murder.

 

[Gilligan]

He had a chance at survival .

A very, very slim chance. At "some kind" of survival...as in living life as a vegetable on life support of various kinds. Even the doctor that proposed the experimental treatment openly acknowledge that it was not curative in any event.

 

[PsyOps]

A very, very slim chance. At "some kind" of survival...as in living life as a vegetable on life support of various kinds. Even the doctor that proposed the experimental treatment openly acknowledge that it was not curative in any event.

For whatever reason, I see everyone is just going to completely miss my point.

I'll just put it this way... if you're for socialized medicine, this is what it looks like. The government making your medical decisions for you. Deciding who lives and who dies.

If this happened to be, let's say... the Queen, or the child of Prince William, you can be for damn certain she would have been seen by these American doctors.

 

[Wishbone]

For whatever reason, I see everyone is just going to completely miss my point.

I'll just put it this way... if you're for socialized medicine, this is what it looks like. The government making your medical decisions for you. Deciding who lives and who dies.

If this happened to be, let's say... the Queen, you can be for damn certain she would have been seen by these American doctors.

Of course... She is far above those worthless peasants!

 

[Gilligan]

For whatever reason, I see everyone is just going to completely miss my point.

Our fault..all of us. Clearly. Not because of your inability to articulate and defend a rational position. Certainly not. ;-p

 

[PsyOps]

Our fault..all of us. Clearly. Not because of your inability to articulate and defend a rational position. Certainly not. ;-p

Homework assignment for you: Go back and read my posts and count how many times I mentioned 'government' in terms of making this decision. My concern is not for whether the person lives or dies in these cases, my concern is who gets to make the decision. Clearly you people only want to focus on whether the child was already dead, so what's the point. This completely dismisses the will and desires of the parents.

 

[black dog]

You keep pumping this fallacy out there. You are either lying or just misinformed.

Who is Charlie Gard, what is the disease he suffers from and what has been decided?



Get informed and read about the rest of it. He had a chance at survival had the hospital and government not stepped in, and the parents were allowed to seek out alternative treatment.

This baby is dead because of stubborn, inept doctors and politicians that took the rights of the parents away to take care of their own child. In any other circumstances, this would be child abuse and murder.

Oh please, You don't come back from zero brain activity. Its irreversible.
ok so i was off a few months bfd, back in April there was a do not resuscitate order on Charlie. He has been a bag of jello long enough, The right thing to do was sleepy time six months ago.

 

[PsyOps]

Oh please, You don't come back from zero brain activity. Its irreversible.

Roger that DOCTOR.

 

[Lurk]

Oh please, You don't come back from zero brain activity. Its irreversible.

Except when it's not, right?

 

[Gilligan]

Clearly you people only want to focus on whether the child was already dead, so what's the point. .

Homework assignment for you. Google "rational decisions".

 

[vraiblonde]

Homework assignment for you: Go back and read my posts and count how many times I mentioned 'government' in terms of making this decision. My concern is not for whether the person lives or dies in these cases, my concern is who gets to make the decision. Clearly you people only want to focus on whether the child was already dead, so what's the point. This completely dismisses the will and desires of the parents.

When you are a socialist country with socialized medicine (like England), the government will be paying and therefore making the decisions.

What exactly is your point, anyway? We already know that government healthcare is bad, and several people have already said so right in this here thread. What exactly are you arguing about?

What I'm curious about is whether Bebe Charlie, whose parents are young, thought socialized healthcare was a good idea a year ago. I wish them no ill will - they seem like nice people and devoted parents - but I wonder if they understand that political actions have consequences, and if they also understood what those consequences were. Or do they just think the government is mean because they won't pay to have their child hooked up to life support indefinitely?

 

[Merlin99]

When you are a socialist country with socialized medicine (like England), the government will be paying and therefore making the decisions.

What exactly is your point, anyway? We already know that government healthcare is bad, and several people have already said so right in this here thread. What exactly are you arguing about?

What I'm curious about is whether Bebe Charlie, whose parents are young, thought socialized healthcare was a good idea a year ago. I wish them no ill will - they seem like nice people and devoted parents - but I wonder if they understand that political actions have consequences, and if they also understood what those consequences were. Or do they just think the government is mean because they won't pay to have their child hooked up to life support indefinitely?

It's not a socialized medicine issue, we've had plenty of cases here where the hospital has gotten a guardian appointed to take medical decisions away from the parents.

remember this one?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-negligence/jCrlgTQBVikJtokEnlFBmN/story.html

 

[PsyOps]

When you are a socialist country with socialized medicine (like England), the government will be paying and therefore making the decisions.

What exactly is your point, anyway?

THAT is my point. THAT has been my point from the beginning; that this is what socialized medicine looks like. And there are people in this country that want this sort of thing; to have a bunch of people (politicians and lawyers) that don't give a damn about you or your children, to make life and death decisions for you. Do I suck that badly at making that point? Has this really escape you all?

 

[vraiblonde]

Do I suck that badly at making that point?

Yes.

To the casual observer, it appeared you were making a "right to life" argument; an ethical argument, as opposed to a political or economical one. The giveaway was when others made the point about socialized healthcare and you proceeded to argue with them, which would indicate you disagree or are on a different astral plane.

I swear you and Larry Gude are soul mates.

 

[Wishbone]

Ouch.

 

[GWguy]

Have you read the latest? Courts have denied treatment and want to allow the child to die. Parents want to take the child home for it's last hours.

Now the hospital is not allowing the couple to take the child home because it will die as soon as it is removed from life support and there is no medical facility in place at the home to accommodate the child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4650642/Doctors-refuse-let-Charlie-Gard-s-parents-home.html

This has now passed into absurd.