Charlie Gard

[Mr. Burns]

Baby Charlie is now dead.

would you all just STFU...red white greem, liberal, social, righty, lefty....

when it's down to the brass tacks, a childs life is gone and his parents will forever have this scare to bear within their existances until they now parish.

this is beyond a political stance.

[naplesE30]

Many missing the point of the case...... it went to a legal battle which creates legal precedent. Even if you have the wealth and means to seek alternative care, once you admit a child or dependent the govt/hospital has legal custody of the patient regardless of outside opinion. This case played out over months.... long before it caught the attention of the masses. Sadly, by the time their was a public outcry loud enough to put pressure on the hospital to allow an outside physician to examine Charlie his condition had deteriorated beyond hope.

Not sure how anyone can reasonably defend the hospital/govt for not allowing parent to seek outside opinion when the parents had means to pay for it. Its like me saying your e30 is totaled because you front corner panel is dented, then crushing it when you have money to buy a new quarter panel. You say I want my car back so I can fix it, and I say no you brought your car to my shop and now I determine its outcome, regardless of others opinions.. and the courts sided with me.

Obviously this all pertains to UK law and precedent. Although their are examples og it in our country as well. Justina Pelletier comes to mind.

[Mediumrarechicken]

Many missing the point of the case...... it went to a legal battle which creates legal precedent. Even if you have the wealth and means to seek alternative care, once you admit a child or dependent the govt/hospital has legal custody of the patient regardless of outside opinion. This case played out over months.... long before it caught the attention of the masses. Sadly, by the time their was a public outcry loud enough to put pressure on the hospital to allow an outside physician to examine Charlie his condition had deteriorated beyond hope.

Not sure how anyone can reasonably defend the hospital/govt for not allowing parent to seek outside opinion when the parents had means to pay for it. Its like me saying your e30 is totaled because you front corner panel is dented and crushing it when you have money to buy a new quarter panel. You say I want my car back so I can fix it, and I say no you brought your car to my shop and now I determine its outcome, regardless of others opinions.. and the courts sided with me.

Obviously this all pertains to UK law and precedent. Although their are examples og it in our country as well. Justina Pelletierwaffles comes to mind

Yes and no. It's like taking your car to a few shops and them saying no we can't fix it, then you talk to a shop in another country and they say yeah bring it in we can fix it, then they do their research and say sorry no we can't fix it.

It's a shitty situation, the child was terminal regardless of what could have been done to him, the parents wanted to spend money to keep him alive for just a bit longer. Thing is the child would have been miserable in a vegetable state. It really sucks for the parents, they didn't want him to go which is understandable, but why extend someone's life if all they are going to do is suffer?

[naplesE30]

With all due respect we are all terminal, and who the fuck is anyone but the parents to determine otherwise. Cancer is painfull and some forms are terminal. Why should any hospital treat it. Treatment is espc painfull. Slippery damn slope with that logic. Totaly agree shitty situation but it should have been the parents choice along with the medical team they had assembled. Espc when there are conflicting medical opinions. Its not as though they didnt have educated professionals willing treat.

Again, the child may have been helped had outside examination been allowed when originally sought. So the more acurate analogy would be another shop looked at it after your car sat and rusted in the yard for a few years while you fought in court to get your car back, and then they said no we cant help.

[z31maniac]

Your sarcasm I sense it. You and I both know that if someone that doesn't have insurance had has a head gash, broken arm or whatever, they will get taken care of and not turned away. They can also go to an urgent care center, pay a co pay and set up payments(if they need to) if they want a check up

This happens every single day to people that dont have H/C. Nearly EVERY health care provider in the nation can and do accept patients of little means at low to no cost or refer them to special programs, and funds and endowments for just these situations. Are they limited and not enough to go around yes, but to say it does not happen is just as asinine.

Your former A/F???? How do you like the V.A. for healthcare??????

Sleeve, do you self insure your vehicles?

[Schnitzer318is]

Many missing the point of the case...... it went to a legal battle which creates legal precedent. Even if you have the wealth and means to seek alternative care, once you admit a child or dependent the govt/hospital has legal custody of the patient regardless of outside opinion. This case played out over months.... long before it caught the attention of the masses. Sadly, by the...

You need to go read the timetable for this case... The legal battle started after little Charlie already had brain damage from seizures. He had an extremely rare condition and died from it... Very sad. Even more sad that some are using this to try and emphasize their political position on socialized medicine.

[naplesE30]

He was admitted in October 2016. The parents had funds to move him since Jan2017. It may had been in vein had they been able to get him transferred, but I firmly believe they should have been able to have him transferred. Espc so since they had the means, and it would have been a burden to no one. As a parent I cant imagine being told I can not seek alternative medical care for my children. That I can not have my child transferred to a better more well equipped facility. This case touches home for me as my mother in-laws life was saved from a brain aneurysm by having her transferred from a hospital in the states to a hospital in Montreal. Her life was saved becuase 1. They could afford to pay for the procedure/transfer. 2. The nueroligist said it was the best place to have it done against his own hospitals wishes. Many administrators tried to talk my father in law out of having her moved. If she were a minor and unable to decide for herself the outcome may have been different.

[mrsleeve]

Sleeve, do you self insure your vehicles?

I know what your trying to infer here, and that has nothing to do with the point I was making. The point being that there are programs out there to fund the care of those who dont have HC insurance. I carry lots of insurances, for many different purposes, you guys all act like insurance programs are some new idea of our modern society. Insuring things dates all the way back to the Babylonians when a merchant pays EXTRA so if his cargo was lost before it made its destination, his loan was forgiven.

Insurance is a free market solution to expensive uncommon though every day occurrences to protect ones financial exposure and assets. NOT SOCIALIST by nature you chose to pay the fees to protect YOUR assets, not so everyone else can benefit from them. In the case of auto insurance driving is a privilege, and thus conditions like attaching mandatory insurance to get your shit on the road is well with in the bounds of the law. We all know how it works I didnt think I needed to explain it.

[Schnitzer318is]

As a parent I cant imagine being told I can not seek alternative medical care for my children.

Fair enough. I imagine that would be a very traumatic thing to hear in a situation where a parent might not be entirely capable of making rational decisions in the best interest of a child.

But as a parent, I can not imagine trying to prolong the life of a child who is already lost to me and my wife. In the process potentially prolonging their suffering.

[gwb72tii]

marshall, george, sushichicken

I'm assuming you all self-insure your vehicles (in OK that would mean having a minimum of $100k in liquid assets that are specifically for insurance, and if you cause more damage, better be ready to come out of your own pocket or go to court)? Sent your children to private school?

Car insurance is the exact same as health insurance, everyone pays in to lower the cost for everyone.

If you didn't send your children to private school, did you make sure to donate to the school district what it actually cost per year per child to educate them?

Even in OK, that works out to an average of $7500 per student, per year. The vast majority of middle and lower class people would no longer be able to afford to send their children to school.

Actually car insurance is based on your risk profile and accident/infraction history, unlike health insurance. Plus you can keep the insurance if you move states and/or employers. It is a marketplace with competition for your insurance dollars, unlike health insurance.

And I understand the pooled risk of insurance, both health and otherwise. I am licensed to sell insurance among other things. But health insurance companies have little/no competition. You are forced to operate within your state's approved companies or through your employer.

Rand Paul had a good idea when he proposed being able to form pools by geography or shared goals and interests. You could have a Los Angeles city pool for example, or Seattle etc. And if health insurers were allowed to market nationally for your hard earned dollars you might actually see premiums drop.

Not sure what you're getting at re public/private schools? FWIW I was responsible for helping start a charity to help support our local public schools when our kids attended them and ran a number of auctions to raise dollars for teachers to use in their classrooms. Our local education budget is north of $10k/child.

[z31maniac]

So is your health insurance. Years ago companies started charging you more for things like being overweight or smoking.

I can't keep the same OK auto policy if I move to KS, sure I can try to stay with the same provider. The laws are different.

It's scary how easy it is to get your license if you don't understand these basics.

[gwb72tii]

So is your health insurance. Years ago companies started charging you more for things like being overweight or smoking.

I can't keep the same OK auto policy if I move to KS, sure I can try to stay with the same provider. The laws are different.

It's scary how easy it is to get your license if you don't understand these basics.

ouch, yes all insurance is state, which is a big part of the problem. You may have the same insurer available, and most auto insurers operate in more than one state.

you'd be a great mid level manager!

[z31maniac]

Not sure what you're getting at re public/private schools? FWIW I was responsible for helping start a charity to help support our local public schools when our kids attended them and ran a number of auctions to raise dollars for teachers to use in their classrooms. Our local education budget is north of $10k/child.

You know exactly what I'm getting at, but you can't defend it, so you deflect.

Let me put it plain terms since you are pretending to not get it.

Public education is socialism. If it weren't for everyone paying in that not everyone needs, the vast majority couldn't afford to educate their children.

I don't have children. Why should I pay to educate yours or anyone elses?

Just like you shouldn't have to pay tolls on a road you don't drive on.


I'll wait why you try to come up with a response to post on the government funded Internet.

You know, because the gov't always sucks and never does anything worthwhile.

[gwb72tii]

You know exactly what I'm getting at, but you can't defend it, so you deflect.

Let me put it plain terms since you are pretending to not get it.

Public education is socialism. If it weren't for everyone paying in that not everyone needs, the vast majority couldn't afford to educate their children.

I don't have children. Why should I pay to educate yours or anyone elses?

Just like you shouldn't have to pay tolls on a road you don't drive on.


I'll wait why you try to come up with a response to post on the government funded Internet.

You know, because the gov't always sucks and never does anything worthwhile.

ahh, there you go again. With a few exceptions, almost everything the federal government gets involved in the free market does better.

Public education is a great example, thanks for bringing it up. For the most part, private schools are better at education. We located where we are in large part because of the local school district. It's top notch and the teachers care. But please tell me why the feds have to be involved? Why is some nameless mid level manager in DC better than local politicians (schools board) at setting education standards?

maybe we can debate why you believe social security is better at the federal level?

[z31maniac]

As usual, you continue to deflect.

I never said the Feds HAVE to be involved. I said Republicans like Socialism when it's something they want.

So you moved where you did, because of publicly funded schools (socialism) why didn't you put them in private schools ($$$$?)

Never said I thought Social Security was good. It's a ponzi scheme, I'm 35, that money is going to the elders, it's not going to be there for me or any of my peers.