There was a discussion about this situation when the court issue was active. Now the child has died, which is of course sad, but not sure what else the OP expects should be said about it. Maybe If the OP actually discussed rather than leaving five words, we would know.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
I was looking forward to a response to my question, but since none is forthcoming, I'll expand.
First, I believe Palin talked of "death panels", not "death squad".
Second, what precisely did she say about death panels?
Speaking about the proposed ACA, Palin claimed that the Democrats would cut health care costs by "rationing care", and went on to say: "And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care.
Of course, time and common sense proved that the ACA did not include any legislative language around death panels, as Palin claimed it did. That means she was not just wrong, but that she lied about it, since she claimed to have seen it in the proposed legislation.
And given that she was wrong, your statement linking a British court case to a fictitious ACA element is even more wrong.
Palin's whole claim is even more despicable, though, because it's her party which tries at every turn to limit health care.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Maybe we didn’t want to use a dead kid for our own political taking point. But since you started the thread, compare infant mortality rates in the countries with single payer healthcare vs the US and we’ll make that the discussion. Because your concern is really about chilren’s healthcare, right?
Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
What relevance do you believe an English case has to the American legal and medical systems that would justify your second sentence?
Socialism fails. Over and over.
Pretty broad and unsubstantiated claim to make, based on one case that doesn't involve "socialism", but rather the British legal system.
You do know that the American courts could make the same decision, right? And you do know that the infant mortality rate in the US is almost twice as high as that in the UK, right?
The "socialist" UK does a far better job at keeping children health and alive than the USA.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
How spectacular that the OP has chosen health care as the topic to try to prove that “socialism” fails, when all data shows that the capitalistic American health care system provides poorer outcomes for much higher cost than any of the socialist European or Canadian health care systems.
Are you aware that american life expectancy is dropping?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
How spectacular that the OP has chosen health care as the topic to try to prove that “socialism” fails, when all data shows that the capitalistic American health care system provides poorer outcomes for much higher cost than any of the socialist European or Canadian health care systems.
Are you aware that american life expectancy is dropping?
Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
What relevance do you believe an English case has to the American legal and medical systems that would justify your second sentence?
Socialism fails. Over and over.
Unless it intervenes where the market fails. You know, military protection, which is not really feasible in a market structure. I suppose you'd consider most other socialism (education provided even to those from families that can't afford it, USDA regulations that help keep meat safe, resulting in 3 cents more per pound, child labor laws, laws against murder). There is no black-and-white "socialism." Everyone is on a continuum somewhere between pure socialism and pure capitalism. Neither end of the spectrum is practical.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
What relevance do you believe an English case has to the American legal and medical systems that would justify your second sentence?
Socialism fails. Over and over.
Unless it intervenes where the market fails. You know, military protection, which is not really feasible in a market structure. I suppose you'd consider most other socialism (education provided even to those from families that can't afford it, USDA regulations that help keep meat safe, resulting in 3 cents more per pound, child labor laws, laws against murder). There is no black-and-white "socialism." Everyone is on a continuum somewhere between pure socialism and pure capitalism. Neither end of the spectrum is practical.
Unsung does not accept arguments based on the real world. Everything is a free market transaction or it's evil and stupid sociocommunobootlicking.
Maybe we didn’t want to use a dead kid for our own political taking point. But since you started the thread, compare infant mortality rates in the countries with single payer healthcare vs the US and we’ll make that the discussion. Because your concern is really about chilren’s healthcare, right?
Unsung getting totally owned again... doesn't matter, he just digs in deeper
Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
What relevance do you believe an English case has to the American legal and medical systems that would justify your second sentence?
Socialism fails. Over and over.
Pretty broad and unsubstantiated claim to make, based on one case that doesn't involve "socialism", but rather the British legal system.
You do know that the American courts could make the same decision, right? And you do know that the infant mortality rate in the US is almost twice as high as that in the UK, right?
The "socialist" UK does a far better job at keeping children health and alive than the USA.
How spectacular that the OP has chosen health care as the topic to try to prove that “socialism” fails, when all data shows that the capitalistic American health care system provides poorer outcomes for much higher cost than any of the socialist European or Canadian health care systems.
Are you aware that american life expectancy is dropping?
This is a tough issue. I do fully support doctor assisted suicide, and I also generally support a parent's right to make decisions on behalf of their child when it comes to medical care for that child. BUT, there are exceptions. When prolonging a child's life is properly deemed by doctors to only put the child through extended pain and suffering, without any hope of a meaningful recovery, I do support the courts stepping in to end that suffering, even when the parents are unable to let go. At the end of the day, what's in the child's best interests are the most important thing, and parental love and hope unfortunately doesn't always result in protecting those interests. That said, I still empathize with the other side of the argument.... it must just be horrible for any parents who want to keep trying but are forced to give up like this. That doesn't mean that it still isn't the best thing to do though. No child should have to live in a permanent state of suffering like that, even when the parents care too much to end it. To put it roughly, love and prayers/hope are no excuse to subject someone to an existence worse than death. We all know that parents do not always know what is best for their children, unfortunately. I understand that they often do, and also that even when they don't they usually think they do... But it isn't a black and white thing. It would be a mistake to assume that it is. This would also be true in those cases where the parents refuse medical treatments that will save a child's life... Philosophically, I don't think there is any difference between the two scenarios, really. And I find that people tend to really get behind the government when they rule against parents in such situations.
I think this issue has nothing to do with universal healthcare systems, so I'm not even going to bother addressing that.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.
^^^
Just imagine the hat is made of foil.
I was looking forward to a response to my question, but since none is forthcoming, I'll expand.
First, I believe Palin talked of "death panels", not "death squad".
Second, what precisely did she say about death panels?
Speaking about the proposed ACA, Palin claimed that the Democrats would cut health care costs by "rationing care", and went on to say: "And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care.
Of course, time and common sense proved that the ACA did not include any legislative language around death panels, as Palin claimed it did. That means she was not just wrong, but that she lied about it, since she claimed to have seen it in the proposed legislation.
And given that she was wrong, your statement linking a British court case to a fictitious ACA element is even more wrong.
Palin's whole claim is even more despicable, though, because it's her party which tries at every turn to limit health care.
Pretty broad and unsubstantiated claim to make, based on one case that doesn't involve "socialism", but rather the British legal system.
You do know that the American courts could make the same decision, right? And you do know that the infant mortality rate in the US is almost twice as high as that in the UK, right?
The "socialist" UK does a far better job at keeping children health and alive than the USA.
Are you aware that american life expectancy is dropping?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Or is it because they are stupid?
Do you equate the health care system with “doctors”, and equate poor health outcomes with “terrible doctors”?
I think there is much you don’t understand about health care.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
LOL
I think this issue has nothing to do with universal healthcare systems, so I'm not even going to bother addressing that.