Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want my own healthcare for me, no one else but me. The previous idiot in the WH took it away from me. Took my personal choice from me.
He made me responsible for others. I am not responsible for others except me and mine. Do not tell me that I have to do something against my will. Thus I never participated in ACA. The fine was mitigated by my tax credits. I have no desire to be included in any socialized anything.
I am in favour of total repeal. Keep your socialized crap. I can and will take care of me. My responsibility is to me and not for thee.
I know it is for me, but I don't consider it "socialized" for me, since I've paid into all my life. It is socialized for those that haven't paid into it and use it.
Unless you die of a fast sickness (less than 3 months of hospitalization) you will receive higher benefits than you paid for. That's why the need for a stream of younger workers to make the retirement benefits to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
I believe they had raised the money to continue paying and were trying to bring the child here to the states for treatment.
In that case they would be able to transfer the kid to a private hospital which exists in the UK. They have raised money for experimental treatment in the US but that won't go far in a private setting
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
Great question.
All thru my career (I'm 48 now) I've never had to worry about health care like I've had to since roughly around '07. I would get a job pick out my plan from my company provided plan and they would deduct a certain amount per check. Even my contract jobs were like that, then things started changing around '07. Now it has been a political talking point ever since it seems.
That's when the boomers started to need more and more health care. It's a numbers game. Until then the majority of workers were young and hence healthier
I want my own healthcare for me, no one else but me. The previous idiot in the WH took it away from me. Took my personal choice from me.
He made me responsible for others. I am not responsible for others except me and mine. Do not tell me that I have to do something against my will. Thus I never participated in ACA. The fine was mitigated by my tax credits. I have no desire to be included in any socialized anything.
I am in favour of total repeal. Keep your socialized crap. I can and will take care of me. My responsibility is to me and not for thee.
A couple who wanted to take their severely ill baby son to the US for treatment say his life-support will be switched off on Friday.
Chris Gard and Connie Yates wanted the 10-month-old, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, to undergo a therapy trial in the US but lost their final legal battle on Tuesday.
...
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.
...
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 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".
Geez - that's terrible. Doctors and Courts will not allow the family to seek care elsewhere for their kid and are willing to let him die without the family exhausting all resources to keep him alive.
Worse. Like was pointed out in another thread by SUPPORTERS of single payer slavery. It would ONLY cost about 10k per person per year to give it away. And it would ONLY take a TINY 26% healthcare tax on payroll. So people would ONLY spend over a quarter of the lives being slaves to those in the medical industry. But hey, the doctors could still work half weeks, driving their cute little BMWs, and sipping wine over brunch while laughing at gouging ever last possible penny from those that they "serve" so "nobly".
And even at that, we know that the rationing you speak of is inevitable...gotta' love collectivism.
What do you think would happen when he reached the lifetime cap decided by an insurance company?
There are no life-time caps. Obamacare prohibits it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
Is this what single payer would get us ? Courts ordering life support machine turned off ?
Single-payer has many faces. The face of UK single-payer is the National Health Services under which all hospitals are owned by the British government and all healthcare workers are employed by the British government.
Had you read National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012), then you'd know that the Supreme Court hints that a national system like Britain (or Portugal, Spain and Sweden) is unconstitutional.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There are no life-time caps. Obamacare prohibits it.
Single-payer has many faces. The face of UK single-payer is the National Health Services under which all hospitals are owned by the British government and all healthcare workers are employed by the British government.
Had you read National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012), then you'd know that the Supreme Court hints that a national system like Britain (or Portugal, Spain and Sweden) is unconstitutional.
There could always be an amendment if that is the case
It sounds like the baby is already dead with no chance of recovery. I would like to hear if the experimental treatment is legitimate but, generally, if the parents want to keep him alive then they should pay for it.
This child should not be kept alive whether they have money or not. It is inhumane.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Death Panel in Europe: Parents Rejected in Effort To Find Care for 10 Month Old Baby
But hey, the doctors could still work half weeks, driving their cute little BMWs, and sipping wine over brunch while laughing at gouging ever last possible penny from those that they "serve" so "nobly".
