A baby is condemned to death by socialized medicine

[jem]

why would you like your ass off being that uninformed?
its one thing to pontificate about the law but be wrong all the time.
but that post was a new low for you.

maybe you are being paid to post.

FAKE NEWS The parents are fee to do as they like but the State is no longer going to keep a brain dead child alive for them.. They will have to do it on their own, with the help of thousands of idiots.

 

[piezoe]

Over $1,700,000 was raised to pay for his treatment. It would not have cost NIH a penney.
The parents are donating the money to help other sick children.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4091813/charlie-gard-foundations-parents-donate-1-3-million-pounds/

Piezoe... don't call em idiots.
Maybe you have never walked in their shoes and thats cool. But they're not idiots. They just care. There's a big difference.

you are right calling them idiots isn't nice, let me change that to "misguided". The family had a lot of money donated. It would be a terrible waste to spend that money on a child for whom there is no hope. But they could do much for other families with that money who have children with curable disease or maladies.. I think they are going to donate the money. That is the right thing to do.

 

[newwurldmn]

you are using rhetorical tricks to take the focus off what happened here.

So... I will go to the other extreme... It was state run death panel handing out and enforcing a death sentence rather than letting the parents take their child to the US for treatment.

As far as the specific situation here, I agree that the UK should have let the parents take the child to the US for treatment even though there was no chance he would survive anyway.

However, as you made it a left vs right argument, I think my examples were warranted. The world is gray and the left doesn't believe in government interference any more than the right does. Both sides disagree on what that interference should be.

 

[jem]

The left of our country is so different today than what it was during the 70s.
In the 70s the left and the hippies were fighting the man.
Now the left is fighting for more power for the man.

For instance...

That we in the US are compelled to pay money not to the govt but to corporations should have set off massive alarm bells. But... you all on the left... and establishment republicans don't even wish to repeal and replace.

That should be a litmus test. If you think its OK to be forced to pay money to a corporation... you should no have a right to vote.

As far as the specific situation here, I agree that the UK should have let the parents take the child to the US for treatment even though there was no chance he would survive anyway.

However, as you made it a left vs right argument, I think my examples were warranted. The world is gray and the left doesn't believe in government interference any more than the right does. Both sides disagree on what that interference should be.

 

[newwurldmn]

The left of our country is so different today than what it was during the 70s.
In the 70s the left and the hippies were fighting the man.
Now the left is fighting for more power for the man.

For instance...

That we in the US are compelled to pay money not to the govt but to corporations should have set off massive alarm bells. But... you all on the left... and establishment republicans don't even wish to repeal and replace.

That should be a litmus test. If you think its OK to be forced to pay money to a corporation... you should no have a right to vote.

I'm not sure how this relates to the issue in question. But trump is more big business friendly than any other president in the last 30 years. Regarding being forced to pay a corporation see what he's doing on net neutrality.

Also his healthcare plan actually forced people who violated the individual mandate to pay the insurance co's a penalty (vs the tax penalty under Obamacare).

I agree, people agree with those policies shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[jem]

you're correct that it was not that responsive

I had written an answer that was responsive and then transition to that point but it was so long.. I cut it.

I did not support any of the replacement proposals except what the reported the skinny bill to be. they were ryan and mcconnell creating obamacare 2.0 for the insurance companies.


but... you were correct there are sometimes... grey areas...
sometimes there are two sets of constitutional rights go up against each other.
Freedom of speech vs yelling fire in a crowded theater.

but to me... there was no grey area... and there were not compelling rights on the govt side.

the baby was going to die if they followed their plan... and the parents obtained the money and found an expert to give the baby a chance.

I'm not sure how this relates to the issue in question. But trump is more big business friendly than any other president in the last 30 years. Regarding being forced to pay a corporation see what he's doing on net neutrality.

Also his healthcare plan actually forced people who violated the individual mandate to pay the insurance co's a penalty (vs the tax penalty under Obamacare).

I agree, people agree with those policies shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[newwurldmn]

you're correct that it was not that responsive

I had written an answer that was responsive and then transition to that point but it was so long.. I cut it.

I did not support any of the replacement proposals except what the reported the skinny bill to be. they were ryan and mcconnell creating obamacare 2.0 for the insurance companies.

I agree the insurance reform is tricky. There are many vested interests as well as divergent ideologies.

As long as there are insurance companies costs will be high. There is too much bueuracracy and administrative work. Some of my doctor friends who work at the local hospital don't even know how much their procedures cost or what the hospital charges.

But if you don't have insurance companies, then you have death panels - or so the Tea Party said 7 years ago.

 

[jem]

competition across state lines.

if you wish to have the govt involved -

The govt set up a voucher program so that everyone can buy basic care from the govt free.

I don't care about the budget ramifications as long as the voucher costs the govt a reasonable amount of money which is not subject to lobbying. There should probably some sort of auction mechanism as well where insurance companies bid to make it even lower.


If it creates inflation so what... we all share that tax. instead of just hammering those who pay taxes even more.

Besides... its the FED reserve increasing the money supply that creates systemic inflation not govt spending if its borrowed.