Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion, except for it does end a life, just like the British government wants to do with this baby, parents be damned. If you feel a mother should be able to decide what to do with her womb, why should that change if the baby is born? Or do you just approve of killing babies in general?

This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion, except for it does end a life, just like the British government wants to do with this baby, parents be damned. If you feel a mother should be able to decide what to do with her womb, why should that change if the baby is born? Or do you just approve of killing babies in general?

This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion, except for it does end a life, just like the British government wants to do with this baby, parents be damned. If you feel a mother should be able to decide what to do with her womb, why should that change if the baby is born? Or do you just approve of killing babies in general?

This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.

Uh ... you mean "fate," right?

Are you under the impression that physicians can override a parent's decisions about their child's treatment without going through a legal process, first? Like, that they just get to do it on a whim, without having to justify it in court?

Again, this is dangerous territory but not surprised liberals don't get it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

You have no clue what you're talking about. None. At. All.

No one's giving Entyvio away. It's an expensive infusion that has to be administered like chemo under medical supervision. You don't know anything about the child's mother and her health insurance choices, so just STFU with your judgment. You also don't know how long the child's had a chronic illness; kids can present with IBD, be diagnosed, and immediately need to have their colons removed to save their lives. People get sick AFTER they've selected insurance and then have to try to make that coverage work or they don't have any choices about their coverage. How long should a child be having bloody diarrhea, losing massive amounts of weight to the point of emaciation, and deteriorating while the appeals are done and the lawyers battle it out? To even suggest that to bolster your own weak and erroneous points and to justify our health care system shows the kind of horrible person you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.

Uh ... you mean "fate," right?

Are you under the impression that physicians can override a parent's decisions about their child's treatment without going through a legal process, first? Like, that they just get to do it on a whim, without having to justify it in court?

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

I understand that the UK parents are asking for the medical transport and have been denied it. If they have privately contracted medical transport but have not been allowed to use it, that's slightly different. However, it is true in this country and in the UK that the doctors can have the final say, especially once the courts get involved. Doctors and hospitals can overrule parents, if the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child. Sometimes doctors and hospitals abuse that, but in this instance, they are correct.

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

You have no clue what you're talking about. None. At. All.

No one's giving Entyvio away. It's an expensive infusion that has to be administered like chemo under medical supervision. You don't know anything about the child's mother and her health insurance choices, so just STFU with your judgment. You also don't know how long the child's had a chronic illness; kids can present with IBD, be diagnosed, and immediately need to have their colons removed to save their lives. People get sick AFTER they've selected insurance and then have to try to make that coverage work or they don't have any choices about their coverage. How long should a child be having bloody diarrhea, losing massive amounts of weight to the point of emaciation, and deteriorating while the appeals are done and the lawyers battle it out? To even suggest that to bolster your own weak and erroneous points and to justify our health care system shows the kind of horrible person you are.

I know little about medicine, PO, and appreciate your explanation. Is there a better treatment for the child with Crohn's disease.

Thank you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US has the best healthcare in the world..... but only for the 1% and people who can afford it. For most regular people there are steep and serious limits to what we can get without bankrupting us.

This is why we need a universal healthcare system, to rein costs in and make healthcare reachable again for people. I'm in favor of having private treatment options available in addition to public as many countries do but the bottom line is that we need a serious fix. The GOP plan goes in exactly the wrong direction and fixes nothing.

a. More than the 1% in America have and do benefit from the best healthcare in the world.

b. Universal healthcare, some thoughts from a WSJ physical poster today. It the American Public agreeable to this?

Characteristics of single payer countries:
1) Smaller, uniform populations with similar beliefs and work ethics.
2) On average, every worker pays 50% in taxes.
3) Costs are controlled by government controlled rationing guidelines.
4) Malpractice decisions are made by government panels
5) Physicians have unions with the right to strike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.