Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
VOSA

So You Say You Want UK Style Socialist MedicaI Insurance

162 posts in this topic

It doesn't matter if socialism is a failure and an assault on freedom.  According to its supporters it is "good" and, therefore, its manifestly and uniformly bad results can be ignored.  If you point them out, you are (fill in the blank with the latest popular pejorative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any government that says parents cannot take their sick child elsewhere for treatement AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE needs to have the collective middle finger raised and be told to go screw themselves. So much for the highly vaunted UK national health system. Under NO circumstances should the decision to end life support for a child be anyone's but the parents'. Screw the courts. Screw the NHS. Screw the UK government. Fight the bastards to your last breath.

Those of you who want a single payer government controlled healthcare system here - this is what it will come down to. Believe it. And FIGHT IT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yes it's much better to have an insurance company make the decisions, especially when under the new proposed "deathcare plan" this child would have no coverage and if he did it would be capped...the parents would go bankrupt....those insurance companies are such humanitarians...a couple of key words from this article-- terminally ill and brain damaged......

what he has is this:

TK2-related mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, myopathic form (TK2-MDS) is an inherited condition that causes progressive muscle weakness (myopathy).

The signs and symptoms of TK2-MDS typically begin in early childhood. Development is usually normal early in life, but as muscle weakness progresses, people with TK2-MDS lose motor skills such as standing, walking, eating, and talking. Some affected individuals have increasing weakness in the muscles that control eye movement, leading to droopy eyelids (progressive external ophthalmoplegia).

Most often in TK2-MDS, the muscles are the only affected tissues; however, the liver may be enlarged (hepatomegaly), seizures can occur, and hearing loss caused by nerve damage in the inner ear (sensorineural hearing loss) may be present. Intelligence is usually not affected.

As the disorder worsens, the muscles that control breathing become weakened and affected individuals frequently have to rely on mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death in people with TK2-MDS, often occurring in childhood. Rarely, the disorder progresses slowly and affected individuals survive into adolescence or adulthood. (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/tk2-related-mitochondrial-dna-depletion-syndrome-myopathic-form)

 

so while you are doing you happy dance, take a couple of minutes and think about the quality of life this child will have given his present condition and persistent deterioration over time.....shades of Terri Shiavo....

the NHS and courts are advocating for the child in this case...though none of you will readily admit that....

I get where the parents are coming from since I have kids of my own and would want to do everything humanly possible...denial is a powerful emotional force....

the hardest decision I had to make was to take my mom off life support when she had a stroke and was pronounced brain dead by a neurosurgeon..,,I would have given everything I had to change the prognosis...however science is a biatch....

there are no winners in this situation, just a couple of parents facing the loss of their child...and the always opportunistic righties who want to politicize everything and would balk at doing the same for one of their own countrymen....that's the funny thing about terminal illnesses...they are apolitical......

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Papi said:

Any government that says parents cannot take their sick child elsewhere for treatement AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE needs to have the collective middle finger raised and be told to go screw themselves. So much for the highly vaunted UK national health system. Under NO circumstances should the decision to end life support for a child be anyone's but the parents'. Screw the courts. Screw the NHS. Screw the UK government. Fight the bastards to your last breath.

Those of you who want a single payer government controlled healthcare system here - this is what it will come down to. Believe it. And FIGHT IT. 

The reason they can't take their kid to the US isn't about the UK NHS, though. You guys want help directing your rage at the correct place, or will you go read about this to figure out why this actually happened instead of placing yourself at the mercy of a middle-market tabloid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll help before I spin anyone up too much.

The UK courts and European court determined that it was more cruel to the child to try to string him out then let him die. The hospital asked to take him off life support because there was no perceived possibility of improvement, but they didn't prevent him moving to the US. The court system did due to patient rights.

This is chiefly about the rights of parents in UK law regarding their choices over what the government deems is cruel for the patient (child). So if you're going to be upset that parents can't make absolute decisions about their children's health (regardless of whether the parents are doing so in the best interest of the child), then you're taking exception to how patients' rights are handled regarding the parents.

Second, you guys have completely missed the other angle for rage here which is that this was appealed beyond the UK courts into the EU courts, meaning a European judge can overrule UK judges. You may have liked the result here had it gone the other way, yet many of you really probably don't like the idea of a legal entity existing outside the national framework. 

And while we can argue about "socialized medicine" until the Earth's rotation slows down a few minutes, these parents won't be financially ruined for their child who has been in the ICU/on life support since October. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

I'll help before I spin anyone up too much.

The UK courts and European court determined that it was more cruel to the child to try to string him out then let him die. The hospital asked to take him off life support because there was no perceived possibility of improvement, but they didn't prevent him moving to the US. The court system did due to patient rights.

This is chiefly about the rights of parents in UK law regarding their choices over what the government deems is cruel for the patient (child). So if you're going to be upset that parents can't make absolute decisions about their children's health (regardless of whether the parents are doing so in the best interest of the child), then you're taking exception to how patients' rights are handled regarding the parents.

Second, you guys have completely missed the other angle for rage here which is that this was appealed beyond the UK courts into the EU courts, meaning a European judge can overrule UK judges. You may have liked the result here had it gone the other way, yet many of you really probably don't like the idea of a legal entity existing outside the national framework. 

And while we can argue about "socialized medicine" until the Earth's rotation slows down a few minutes, these parents won't be financially ruined for their child who has been in the ICU/on life support since October. 

you are wasting your time...some people just react when they see certain words.....the survey about the lack of empathy among the trumpets and righties in geneyral played out right before your eyes....as I said in another thread...righties have the market cornered on phony outrage and hypocrisy......

Edited by Baltimatt
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

yes it's much better to have an insurance company make the decisions, especially when under the new proposed "deathcare plan" this child would have no coverage and if he did it would be capped...the parents would go bankrupt....those insurance companies are such humanitarians...a couple of key words from this article-- terminally ill and brain damaged......

what he has is this:

TK2-related mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, myopathic form (TK2-MDS) is an inherited condition that causes progressive muscle weakness (myopathy).

The signs and symptoms of TK2-MDS typically begin in early childhood. Development is usually normal early in life, but as muscle weakness progresses, people with TK2-MDS lose motor skills such as standing, walking, eating, and talking. Some affected individuals have increasing weakness in the muscles that control eye movement, leading to droopy eyelids (progressive external ophthalmoplegia).

Most often in TK2-MDS, the muscles are the only affected tissues; however, the liver may be enlarged (hepatomegaly), seizures can occur, and hearing loss caused by nerve damage in the inner ear (sensorineural hearing loss) may be present. Intelligence is usually not affected.

As the disorder worsens, the muscles that control breathing become weakened and affected individuals frequently have to rely on mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure is the most common cause of death in people with TK2-MDS, often occurring in childhood. Rarely, the disorder progresses slowly and affected individuals survive into adolescence or adulthood. (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/tk2-related-mitochondrial-dna-depletion-syndrome-myopathic-form)

 

so while you are doing you happy dance, take a couple of minutes and think about the quality of life this child will have given his present condition and persistent deterioration over time.....shades of Terri Shiavo....

the NHS and courts are advocating for the child in this case...though none of you will readily admit that....

I get where the parents are coming from since I have kids of my own and would want to do everything humanly possible...denial is a powerful emotional force....

the hardest decision I had to make was to take my mom off life support when she had a stroke and was pronounced brain dead by a neurosurgeon..,,I would have given everything I had to change the prognosis...however science is a biatch....

there are no winners in this situation, just a couple of parents facing the loss of their child...and the always opportunistic righties who want to politicize everything and would balk at doing the same for one of their own countrymen....that's the funny thing about terminal illnesses...they are apolitical......

 

9 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

The reason they can't take their kid to the US isn't about the UK NHS, though. You guys want help directing your rage at the correct place, or will you go read about this to figure out why this actually happened instead of placing yourself at the mercy of a middle-market tabloid?

 

8 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

I'll help before I spin anyone up too much.

The UK courts and European court determined that it was more cruel to the child to try to string him out then let him die. The hospital asked to take him off life support because there was no perceived possibility of improvement, but they didn't prevent him moving to the US. The court system did due to patient rights.

This is chiefly about the rights of parents in UK law regarding their choices over what the government deems is cruel for the patient (child). So if you're going to be upset that parents can't make absolute decisions about their children's health (regardless of whether the parents are doing so in the best interest of the child), then you're taking exception to how patients' rights are handled regarding the parents.

Second, you guys have completely missed the other angle for rage here which is that this was appealed beyond the UK courts into the EU courts, meaning a European judge can overrule UK judges. You may have liked the result here had it gone the other way, yet many of you really probably don't like the idea of a legal entity existing outside the national framework. 

And while we can argue about "socialized medicine" until the Earth's rotation slows down a few minutes, these parents won't be financially ruined for their child who has been in the ICU/on life support since October. 

 

8 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

you are wasting your time...some people just react when they see certain words.....the survey about the lack of empathy among the trumpets and righties in geneyral played out right before your eyes....as I said in another thread...righties have the market cornered on phony outrage and hypocrisy......

Excellent! Thank you guys. At least some of you read the whole story and don't just kneejerk at hearing the words "NHS" and "Social Healthcare" and then politicise with such silly scare mongering. 

If you guys want to pay through the nose through your insurance and big pharma companies, all well and good, and if it is as superior to the NHS system as you claim, why the need to lie about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that government is making the final decision about this child's life. 

I will choose to side with the parents over any government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

The reason they can't take their kid to the US isn't about the UK NHS, though. You guys want help directing your rage at the correct place, or will you go read about this to figure out why this actually happened instead of placing yourself at the mercy of a middle-market tabloid?

The hospital where the child is located is owned by the government and the doctors are government employees of the NHS. Of course this is about the NHS, and its requirement to ration care. The NHS asks the court to rule in their favor and of course that arm of government complies. What is galling in this case is the fact that the parents have raised private money for a last ditch effort to try something new for their child and the government run system is preventing them for doing so. They can't even take the child home so he can die at home.

Here in the USA if one's insurance plan denies treatment coverage and a person has the means to pay for it themselves there is no "law" that prevents them from doing so, but in a government run system like the NHS the heavy hand of government rationing insures that this child must die, without allowing for the possibility of privately paid for heroic efforts (such efforts would upset the sensibilities of the system). Sorry, but that aspect of systems like the NHS suck and should be fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

 

 

 

 

Excellent! Thank you guys. At least some of you read the whole story and don't just kneejerk at hearing the words "NHS" and "Social Healthcare" and then politicise with such silly scare mongering. 

If you guys want to pay through the nose through your insurance and big pharma companies, all well and good, and if it is as superior to the NHS system as you claim, why the need to lie about it?

No excuse for taking away the rights of parents to make healthcare decisions for a child is acceptable. The "patient rights" argument when applied to an 11 month old child is an absurdity. The NHS is a terrible system and if any such system were ever to be imposed in the USA I would fight against it until they chose to kill me. My healthcare decsions and those of my family are none of the government's damn business, ever. And a hell of a lot of Brits feel the same way, as evidenced by the growing number who choose to seek care outside of the NHS. Good for them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

you are wasting your time...some people just react when they see certain words.....the survey about the lack of empathy among the trumpets and righties in geneyral played out right before your eyes....as I said in another thread...righties have the market cornered on phony outrage and hypocrisy......

No, people react to injustice and excessive government intrusion into their personal lives and decisions. Nothing phony here except your stupid remarks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

The bottom line is that government is making the final decision about this child's life. 

I will choose to side with the parents over any government.

Exactly and it appears that "subjects" in the UK are treated as the property of the government who can tell them whether they can take their child to the US or not.  That alone is abhorrent to me.  No government should ever have that much control over their citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not clear why they are standing in the way of the parents traveling to the U.S. for treatment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

The bottom line is that government is making the final decision about this child's life. 

I will choose to side with the parents over any government.

What about the case where the US court ruled against the parents who denied their child a blood transfusion?  Did you also side with the parents then too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

What about the case where the US court ruled against the parents who denied their child a blood transfusion?  Did you also side with the parents then too?

The parents in THIS story hope to keep their child alive by traveling to another country for treatment.

I assume the blood transfusion case involves a Jehovah Witness family.  I never side with a family whose religious beliefs KILL a child.

I always side with parents who want their child to LIVE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, WKDWZD said:

 

 

 

 

Excellent! Thank you guys. At least some of you read the whole story and don't just kneejerk at hearing the words "NHS" and "Social Healthcare" and then politicise with such silly scare mongering. 

If you guys want to pay through the nose through your insurance and big pharma companies, all well and good, and if it is as superior to the NHS system as you claim, why the need to lie about it?

I lived in the UK for 11 years...I have no complaints about the quality or availability of medical services provided by the NHS. What my uniformed countrymen don't understand, is you can by private health insurance if you so desire. I don't think the NHS has changed the rules regarding the number of private patients a doctor can have, expecially when you get in to specialties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

28 minutes ago, Papi said:

No, people react to injustice and excessive government intrusion into their personal lives and decisions. Nothing phony here except your stupid remarks. 

what you are saying is the child has no rights....so what's your stance on abortion?  you don't think it is an injustice to put this child through all of this? The outcome will be the same....

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

The parents in THIS story hope to keep their child alive by traveling to another country for treatment.

I assume the blood transfusion case involves a Jehovah Witness family.  I never side with a family whose religious beliefs KILL a child.

I always side with parents who want their child to LIVE.

 

even if it means the child suffers in the process? The condition isn't curable. The child is going to suffer a painful death.....this just prolongs the agony of both parents and child....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, can you hear me now! said:

even if it means the child suffers in the process? The condition isn't curable. The child is going to suffer a painful death.....this just prolongs the agony of both parents and child....

Not your decision to make. And it's not mine.

Do you want the government to refuse your family the right to travel to another country for treatment and instead tells you that you have to allow your grandchild to die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

Not your decision to make. And it's not mine.

Do you want the government to refuse your family the right to travel to another country for treatment and instead tells you that you have to allow your grandchild to die?

you keep reading this the wrong way.....the courts are doing what is in the best interest of the child...I know that is a novel concept to many, but that is what is happening here....if a US parent were doing this there would a fairly good chance the state would intervene and make the child a ward of the state....but continue to make this about the parents if you must...

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 minute ago, can you hear me now! said:

you keep reading this the wrong way.....the courts are doing what is in the best interest of the child...I know that is a novel concept to many, but that is what is happening here....if a US parent were doing this there would a fairly good change the state would intervene and make the child a ward of the state....but continue to make this about the parents if you must....

Keep removing the parents if you must. What rights do they have over their child? Apparently none.

You didn't answer the question. Do you want a government agency telling you that your grandchild must be left to die?

Edited by Sprightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

The parents in THIS story hope to keep their child alive by traveling to another country for treatment.

I assume the blood transfusion case involves a Jehovah Witness family.  I never side with a family whose religious beliefs KILL a child.

I always side with parents who want their child to LIVE.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

Keep removing the parents if you must. What rights do they have over their child? Apparently none.

You didn't answer the question. Do you want a government agency telling you that your grandchild must be left to die?

I am not saying the parents don't have rights...what you are saying is the child has none...which is not true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear mongering...

...for when logic fails.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0