Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.newser.com/story/244032/brit ... to-us.html

What a ghoulish, backward system.

And this is supposedly the system we want to emulate?

Someone explain to me how there is no dignity in getting involved in an experimental treatment that could possibly save lives or at least contribute to an understanding of a still-incurable disease?

When you give over to the government to take care of you, the government will take care of you.

And if you turn your lives over to the government, you get things like this...

The government has graciously granted the parents some more time with their child...how sweet they are...


[quote]Charlie was meant to be taken off of life support on Friday, but his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, were granted more time with him by the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where he is being treated./quote]
http://people.com/human-interest/charli ... e-support/

Here's the thing-

There's no good answer here.

UK healthcare is single payer. This kid was likely going to die anyway. In order to get to the US, he was going to need a medevac flight and life support. That's expensive, and U.K. taxpayers were going to foot the bill. When you accept government paid healthcare, this is what you get.... bureaucrats deciding what is best, instead of you.

In reality, if the U.K. had privatized healthcare like we did before the ACA, these parents would not have been able to afford to get the kid to the US and pay for the treatment anyway.

At the end of the day, you choose your poison. I prefer the poison of being able to make my own choices. Even if those choices involve the choice of having my child die at home with me, because I cannot afford costly, experimental treatments. If I can't afford them on the free market, the government is also not going to allow them, under the guise (excuse) of humanity

Pwns wrote:http://www.newser.com/story/244032/brit ... to-us.html

What a ghoulish, backward system.

And this is supposedly the system we want to emulate?

Someone explain to me how there is no dignity in getting involved in an experimental treatment that could possibly save lives or at least contribute to an understanding of a still-incurable disease?

1) Bad decisions are made in every system. you can support some form of single payer and still not support this.

2) Julia Ormond was purty back in the day.

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:http://www.newser.com/story/244032/brit ... to-us.html

What a ghoulish, backward system.

And this is supposedly the system we want to emulate?

Someone explain to me how there is no dignity in getting involved in an experimental treatment that could possibly save lives or at least contribute to an understanding of a still-incurable disease?

1) Bad decisions are made in every system. you can support some form of single payer and still not support this.

2) Julia Ormond was purty back in the day.

Single payer, on the whole, winds up being a wash compared to free market. Period.

CID1990 wrote:Here's the thing-

There's no good answer here.

UK healthcare is single payer. This kid was likely going to die anyway. In order to get to the US, he was going to need a medevac flight and life support. That's expensive, and U.K. taxpayers were going to foot the bill. When you accept government paid healthcare, this is what you get.... bureaucrats deciding what is best, instead of you.

In reality, if the U.K. had privatized healthcare like we did before the ACA, these parents would not have been able to afford to get the kid to the US and pay for the treatment anyway.

At the end of the day, you choose your poison. I prefer the poison of being able to make my own choices. Even if those choices involve the choice of having my child die at home with me, because I cannot afford costly, experimental treatments. If I can't afford them on the free market, the government is also not going to allow them, under the guise (excuse) of humanity

This family has raised over a million dollars on GoFundme, so surely they can afford to bring the baby to the US. And if this is some kind of clinical trial there might actually be funds built in for medical personnel to travel abroad, because it's not exactly a common disease.

But I don't disagree with what you're saying about government health care and have brought that up multiple times here...there's no magic to lower health care costs in Europe and Canada. The very fact that they can basically cut off this family from getting this treatment should give anyone pause about the supposedly more humane European health care systems.

The idea that this is about dying with dignity is a steaming pile of horse-****. The vast majority of adults with some terminal illness would be willing to get an experimental treatment for the off chance of being cured or at least being a guinea pig to hopefully advance understanding of the disease. Not an unreasonable thing to impose on an infant.

Pwns wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Here's the thing-

There's no good answer here.

UK healthcare is single payer. This kid was likely going to die anyway. In order to get to the US, he was going to need a medevac flight and life support. That's expensive, and U.K. taxpayers were going to foot the bill. When you accept government paid healthcare, this is what you get.... bureaucrats deciding what is best, instead of you.

In reality, if the U.K. had privatized healthcare like we did before the ACA, these parents would not have been able to afford to get the kid to the US and pay for the treatment anyway.

At the end of the day, you choose your poison. I prefer the poison of being able to make my own choices. Even if those choices involve the choice of having my child die at home with me, because I cannot afford costly, experimental treatments. If I can't afford them on the free market, the government is also not going to allow them, under the guise (excuse) of humanity

This family has raised over a million dollars on GoFundme, so surely they can afford to bring the baby to the US. And if this is some kind of clinical trial there might actually be funds built in for medical personnel to travel abroad, because it's not exactly a common disease.

But I don't disagree with what you're saying about government health care and have brought that up multiple times here...there's no magic to lower health care costs in Europe and Canada. The very fact that they can basically cut off this family from getting this treatment should give anyone pause about the supposedly more humane European health care systems.

The idea that this is about dying with dignity is a steaming pile of horse-****. The vast majority of adults with some terminal illness would be willing to get an experimental treatment for the off chance of being cured or at least being a guinea pig to hopefully advance understanding of the disease. Not an unreasonable thing to impose on an infant.

It doesn't matter how much money they or anybody else would raise

This child was on government paid treatment for his entire short life. He's in the system. There are all kinds of rights the parents signed away when they accepted the dole.

Welcome to your future

Addendum: experimental treatments are not going to be considered by State Healthcare

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
1) Bad decisions are made in every system. you can support some form of single payer and still not support this.

2) Julia Ormond was purty back in the day.

Single payer, on the whole, winds up being a wash compared to free market. Period.

From a cost standpoint? From an access standpoint? From an outcomes standpoimt?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Single payer, on the whole, winds up being a wash compared to free market. Period.

From a cost standpoint? From an access standpoint? From an outcomes standpoimt?

What part of "on the whole" didn't you understand, Klam?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

ON THE WHOLE, its a wash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My belief for as long as I can remember is that ultimate responsibility for the well being of children should rest with parents. As long as it's clear that they have no intent to harm the child, their positions on things like medical treatment should rule. And I think that should be the case regardless of what science says.

I think it's an important principle that should be applied even if it means the best thing is not always done for the children involved.

Plus in this case the idea that it would be "cruel" to give send him to the United States and give the treatment a shot seems pretty absurd.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
From a cost standpoint? From an access standpoint? From an outcomes standpoimt?

What part of "on the whole" didn't you understand, Klam?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

ON THE WHOLE, its a wash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So half the cost per capita with equal if not better outcomes washes out access and bureaucracy...

(Reminder: bureaucracy occurs with private sector insurance as well)

Just asking for clarification, I know you're touchy.

People like to bash US healthcare, until they realize that we have treatment options not available anywhere else. Of course, you have to have some way to pay for them...

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
What part of "on the whole" didn't you understand, Klam?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

ON THE WHOLE, its a wash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So half the cost per capita with equal if not better outcomes washes out access and bureaucracy...

(Reminder: bureaucracy occurs with private sector insurance as well)

Just asking for clarification, I know you're touchy.

I do believe you are pulling this out of your ass.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
So half the cost per capita with equal if not better outcomes washes out access and bureaucracy...

(Reminder: bureaucracy occurs with private sector insurance as well)

Just asking for clarification, I know you're touchy.

I do believe you are pulling this out of your ass.

You're right. I did. The U.K. Is less than half.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
What part of "on the whole" didn't you understand, Klam?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

ON THE WHOLE, its a wash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So half the cost per capita with equal if not better outcomes washes out access and bureaucracy...

(Reminder: bureaucracy occurs with private sector insurance as well)

Just asking for clarification, I know you're touchy.

I see-

And also at less than half the quality

People love to quote statistics about the "quality" of medicine in developed countries that have single payer systems

Ive experienced it first hand in two countries- the UK, and Austria

They are fine for outpatient emergency care, for minor illnesses, a simple fracture, etc

When it comes to outcomes, the devil is in the details. If a person with cancer never gets surgery, then their death isnt measured as a medical outcome. Deaths from the denial (or delay) of medical procedures isnt captured. It makes the UK's and Canada's systems appeAr to be on pair with the quality found in the US.

The quality goes down and eventually two systems evolve - Americans are used to a much better level of care and that is going to be a problem.

Like I said before- both systems have their issues - but I predict that Americans are going to be much less tolerant of the issues that come with state run med care.

If you think having the VA as your national healthcare system is an improvement over the free market one, you are not thinking it through very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This entire thread has been a reenactment of one of the oldest morality conundrums in philosophy
This type of scenario is played out daily on a global level
in all variety of human dilemma

and:
Who knew Healthcare was so hard...

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
So half the cost per capita with equal if not better outcomes washes out access and bureaucracy...

(Reminder: bureaucracy occurs with private sector insurance as well)

Just asking for clarification, I know you're touchy.

I see-

And also at less than half the quality

People love to quote statistics about the "quality" of medicine in developed countries that have single payer systems

Ive experienced it first hand in two countries- the UK, and Austria

They are fine for outpatient emergency care, for minor illnesses, a simple fracture, etc

When it comes to outcomes, the devil is in the details. If a person with cancer never gets surgery, then their death isnt measured as a medical outcome. Deaths from the denial (or delay) of medical procedures isnt captured. It makes the UK's and Canada's systems appeAr to be on pair with the quality found in the US.

The quality goes down and eventually two systems evolve - Americans are used to a much better level of care and that is going to be a problem.

Like I said before- both systems have their issues - but I predict that Americans are going to be much less tolerant of the issues that come with state run med care.

If you think having the VA as your national healthcare system is an improvement over the free market one, you are not thinking it through very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Half the quality sounds highly scientific...

We're also down the list a bit in infant mortality and life expectancy. Life expectancy has many factors but one of them includes cancer care.

I'm not saying I want the UK's exact system and I recognize your experiences and the downsides to socialized care. But this debate tends to often wander into hyperbole, ignoring the facts.

And yes...liberals are guilty too...

kalm wrote: We're also down the list a bit in infant mortality...

If infant mortality was calculated the same by all countries, you would have a point. The devil is in the details.

The threshold for being a "live birth" in the US is much lower than in any other industrialized nation. In the US, if a baby is born, takes a breath, moves, or has a heartbeat outside the womb, it is considered a "live birth". In the other "industrialized" nations, a baby has to live outside the womb for 24 hours before it is considered a live birth. Even is a perfectly healthy baby dies within the first 24 hours, it's considered stillborn. Most of those other countries don't even count low birth weight babies or babies born under 30 cm long as live births, either. They categorize those babies as "unsalvagable".

Doctors in the US use extraordinary measures to save extremely premature babies, other industrialized nations, not so much.

Chizzang wrote:This entire thread has been a reenactment of one of the oldest morality conundrums in philosophy
This type of scenario is played out daily on a global level
in all variety of human dilemma

and:
Who knew Healthcare was so hard...

I understand that....organ transplant committees decide who is going to get on one of the life boats every single day. Resources in medicine are very finite and you've got to have either deep pockets or have some kind of lottery system in order to decide who gets what.

This is nothing like that. There's no zero-sum game here because the family was able to raise a large sum of money.

Looks like this baby is going to die.

Apparently this baby is nothing but a lifeless vegetable, but somehow will suffer if we use him as a case study that could lead to a better understanding of the disease if not be the discovery of a cure.