Random Politics & Religion #26

I'm very well aware of the fact hospitals can't deny treatment. But poor people can't afford those bills.

And except for that two uncles of mine, most of my family resides just above the poverty line. As such, a lot of my family would've been *** if not for the mentioned uncle.

So, maybe go *** yourself?

Treatment would not have saved his life. It would have prolonged the extremely deteriorated condition he was in. Don't be scummy and use an impossible situation involving a sick kid to push whatever *** socialism rhetoric makes you feel superior.

Grandpa, and he didn't have it because he didn't feel "needed" it before he found out he had cancer. After that, he was denied anything resembling reasonably priced coverage.

Sorry, but your family's life choices are none of my concern.

Maybe you should emulate your successful uncles instead of demanding that everyone get down to your level.

Either way, why should I pay for your insurance?

Except the kid could have had a chance for survival, and without the debilitating conditions that could have been prevented if the hospitals/judges allowed his parents to go to the US to get treatment.

Do you honestly think that this decision was made after it was too late? Remember, the court system and the bureaucratic nightmare that is British government doesn't run any faster than the US. They were fighting for this for months and could have come to the US well before it was too late.

But the system you cherish saw that he wasn't allowed to live. Congratulations Pleebo, you support a government system that removes/condones human rights from people. How do you feel?

And yet, you support a law that denies everyone else from having anything that resembles a reasonably priced insurance policy.

Tell me, what's worse: Paying $12k/year in premiums alone, then another $7k/year in deductibles, just for the insurance to actually kick in...per person. With family coverage, that amount doubles, and trust me, there isn't many families out there who have more than 1 sick person at a time, if at all.

I bet you that your grandfather didn't pay nearly that much on cancer treatments per year. But knowing you, you will say he paid $500k/year just to say something stupid...again.

The medical team made their decision after his condition worsened. The parents ultimately agreed. You don't seem to be familiar with the basic situation. It had nothing to do with government bureaucracy. It was a medical decision.

You know what, you get me a time machine and I'll be sure to go back to 1955 and invest heavily in McDonalds before it exploded like my uncle's parents did.

Pleebo is generally heartless when it comes to babies. He just thinks of this as a warm and fuzzy abortion.

Not wanting a baby to needlessly suffer to no positive end is totes heartless of me.

The parents ultimately agreed only because it was too late to save him.

And seriously, you think it had nothing to do with the stall tactics by the bureaucracy? Or the fact that this not only went to court, but was appealed all the way up to the UK Supreme Court. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's another win for the heartless bureaucracy you so cherish.

Just admit it, you want this situation to occur, again and again and again.

Technically? Yeah they do.

Isn't the law that the only bills that a family is responsible for are those that come directly from the estate? I was under the impression that anything that wasn't covered by the estate is considered non-collectible. What the frick kind of situation was your grandfather in where bills lingered past death and onto the family?

You can try to incorrectly frame this however you'd like. I'm sure the kid would be glad to know his death helped fuel the propaganda machine of a bunch of shameless Americans.

How do you know the baby is suffering? It can't talk.

Look up the symptoms for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.

That the core appeal of the progressive ideology. Working for success is to hard and long, being mediocre is much easier. Unfortunately mediocrity doesn't pay well nor does it afford a very nice standard of living, and that's a problem because they want that higher quality of life. Enter socialism, they take wealth from the successful and redistribute it to the mediocre. Over time the quality of life differences between the two shrink until eventually the state takes complete control and they vanish.

I'm sure that kid will find solace that people like you were not only celebrating his death, but also wishing death on people who are sick and deemed by the state unworthy of care.

Obviously you didn't pay attention, but the parents could have taken the kid to America for experimental treatment.

Sure, it could have not worked, but then again, it could have. It may have cured him, or at the very least, given doctors the chance to understand a little more about the disease and helped save more lives.

Instead, the state decided to not allow Charlie to live because they, not the parents, deemed him unworthy to live. Would you like the state to deem you unworthy to live in the near future? By the sound of you and Pleebo, you would.

But by that time, you will probably fight against the state in the hypocritical fashion you deem fit for yourself.

My state probably would.

They're only capable of suffering after they come out and can validate the cause of single payer.

Before that they are merely a clump of cells.

In our case, it would be the federal government.

Thanks for proving my point. Also proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The parents had the money, through crowdfunding, but the government said no and the parents, through legal means until it was too late to do anything, couldn't take their son to the US for experimental treatment.

So, to reiterate, the parents had the means and an alternative method of finding treatment to their son, but the state said no because the state felt like they control his life, not the parents. How would you like the state to determine if you should live or die?

Medicaid is already doing that. Because of Obamacare, Medicaid already told hundreds of people in one state alone that they should die.

Let me ask you this: Do you want the state to determine if you should live or die when you get sick? Why can't you answer that question, which has been brought up multiple times already?

To some liberals/democrats, even after they are born, they are still a clump of cells that should be killed, because they don't "feel" anything, according to them.

I wonder, if it's still after-birth-abortion if you kill a 40 year old man?

What? The doctor who was going to do the experimental treatment turned them down when he saw the MRI scans indicating severe brain damage has already occurred.

No, he didn't.

But whatever fits your narrative, right? As long as the state determines who should live, you will accept that. Proof of that is in your posts.

I miss the edit feature. Damn it Kojo!

Changing your rhetoric now, huh Shiori?

That is a state funding decision, not a medicare or obamacare decision.

And, pray tell, who is the governor of that state and what party has a lock on its government?

*** right off with this garbage. Never said or implied anything like it. This was a medical decision that made its way to the courts. Nothing to do with scary socialized medicine so you can chill with the pants wetting. You're arguing entirely from emotion and don't know the basic facts of the case so no point in continuing with this.