- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:50 pm to Scruffy
This is the price of getting stuff from the government. "Free" healthcare, "free" college, "free" everything sounds really nice in theory. Until you look down at your pay-stub one day and realize that the government taking almost half your earnings means all your "free" stuff isn't really free. Not only that, you no longer have a say in your healthcare, education, etc because anything the government can "give" you(with our own money) they can also take away or limit as they see fit. Slippery slope...Europe is starting to taste it now, and we aren't far behind.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:50 pm to Breesus
This story is a microcosm of everything wrong with our current news cycle, attention span.
People read the headline and get outraged without digging deeper.
Our society is so fricked. Reading comprehension and critical thinking have completely been abandoned for sound bites and hot takes.
Social media allows the stupids to come together in ways never before possible.
People read the headline and get outraged without digging deeper.
Our society is so fricked. Reading comprehension and critical thinking have completely been abandoned for sound bites and hot takes.
Social media allows the stupids to come together in ways never before possible.
This post was edited on 6/30/17 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:51 pm to chinhoyang
Tough one. If the child is unable to speak, move, swallow, etc. And the experimental treatment in the U.S. is not curative, then they are only going to bankrupt themselves before the inevitable.
That's how the U.S. hospitals work, keep you alive and paying $$$,$$$.$$ until the end. Then cut you off.
That's how the U.S. hospitals work, keep you alive and paying $$$,$$$.$$ until the end. Then cut you off.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:51 pm to ghost2most
quote:
parents are irrationale (for understandable reasons) and can't see the forest through the trees.
Wait....moving heaven and earth to keep their kid alive is irrational?
The frick?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:51 pm to Breesus
quote:
Because they don't have any money and all of the kids Healthcare is funded by the state?
It is my understanding via reading this thread, that they had raised the money privately.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:51 pm to magildachunks
quote:
And the government did everything they could to prevent that. So don't act like we have a lot more freedom here.
It was her parents that fought to keep her alive, against her wishes, which her husband fought to obey.
This post was edited on 6/30/17 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:53 pm to MSMHater
quote:
Yep. The "Medicare for all" crowd has to realize this. It's also why i believe we'll never have a truly single payer system in this country. i don't think you'll ever have enough people willing to give up life/death decisions to financial actuaries. There will always be a private market here.
See: Education system.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:54 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Wait....moving heaven and earth to keep their kid alive is irrational?
The frick?
If the world's leading experts said there is no chance for a cure you are only extending your child's suffering, you would continue to keep them alive?
Sounds like it's more about you than the kid's best interest.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:55 pm to chinhoyang
I see both sides of it. If they're using private funds for treatment then you wonder how the state has the right to tell them how to use it.
That said, even in the US, we have a responsibility to step in (CHFS) if parents are doing harm to their children. If the experimental treatment isn't going to cure the infant or really extend life to a point of quality, then how is it any different than someone who takes their kids off the grid and uses "alternative medicine" to treat their kids?
It's a a hard line to toe.
That said, even in the US, we have a responsibility to step in (CHFS) if parents are doing harm to their children. If the experimental treatment isn't going to cure the infant or really extend life to a point of quality, then how is it any different than someone who takes their kids off the grid and uses "alternative medicine" to treat their kids?
It's a a hard line to toe.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:55 pm to tider04
quote:
This is the price of getting stuff from the government. "Free" healthcare, "free" college, "free" everything sounds really nice in theory. Until you look down at your pay-stub one day and realize that the government taking almost half your earnings means all your "free" stuff isn't really free.
You think the parents of the child could afford their medical bills if they were on private insurance?
What about trying to transfer a baby on life support across the Atlantic to do an experimental treatment? Think insurance would cover that?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:58 pm to ghost2most
quote:
If the world's leading experts said there is no chance for a cure you are only extending your child's suffering, you would continue to keep them alive?
Sounds like it's more about you than the kid's best interest.
That's beside the point. The question at hand is really; who should have the right to make decisions about YOUR life? Or your kid's life? Or your medical treatments? If you think the government has the right to those personal decisions instead of you, then you're giving away something fundamental and essential about true human freedom. The cluster that is our VA system should make this whole debate disappear, honestly.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:58 pm to dbeck
If Bill Gates' kid has a disease that causes them intense pain 24/7, they are mute, can't breathe, can't talk, can't eat, can't move, but he has the money to keep them alive on his own dime forever, should he be allowed to?
No.
It's not just a matter of money, it's quality of life or lack thereof.
I trust the doctors to make this decision based on science rather than the emotion of the parents.
No.
It's not just a matter of money, it's quality of life or lack thereof.
I trust the doctors to make this decision based on science rather than the emotion of the parents.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 12:59 pm to ghost2most
quote:
If the world's leading experts said there is no chance for a cure
Many children's cancers (well... just cancers, for that matter) used to have no chance for a cure. Now they have a 90% or higher cure rate for some of them.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:00 pm to ghost2most
quote:
If the world's leading experts said there is no chance for a cure you are only extending your child's suffering, you would continue to keep them alive?
I understand the courts reasoning and generally agree with them in cases that the state is funding.
That being said, you have no idea to what limits you would go for even a sliver of hope for your own child. 99% of the time I strive for emotion free, logical, rational thinking. If either of my children was in such a state, I don't think that line of thinking would hold. We're human, and never more than when your own child is in pain.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:01 pm to dbeck
quote:
You think the parents of the child could afford their medical bills if they were on private insurance?
What about trying to transfer a baby on life support across the Atlantic to do an experimental treatment? Think insurance would cover that?
If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. Didn't someone say they raised the funds?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:05 pm to ghost2most
quote:
If Bill Gates' kid has a disease that causes them intense pain 24/7, they are mute, can't breathe, can't talk, can't eat, can't move, but he has the money to keep them alive on his own dime forever, should he be allowed to?
No.
That's not your call. It's not your kid. The kid doesn't belong to you or the government. That would be Bill and his family's decision to make. Medical advancements are happening at breakneck speed. Stuff that is fatal today will be curable in 10 years. If Bill wants to keep his kid alive in hopes of a treatment, more power to him. Keep your nose in your own business.
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:06 pm to ghost2most
quote:It isn't even remotely that simple, and it never will be.
If Bill Gates' kid has a disease that causes them intense pain 24/7, they are mute, can't breathe, can't talk, can't eat, can't move, but he has the money to keep them alive on his own dime forever, should he be allowed to?
No.
It's not just a matter of money, it's quality of life or lack thereof.
I trust the doctors to make this decision based on science rather than the emotion of the parents.
You have to accept and take into account that it is a combination of financial support and science, not one or the other.
There are kids who live in our hospital who cannot move, speak, breathe, eat, etc., on their own. We keep them alive. Some have been alive for a decade.
What is your stance in that situation?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:09 pm to ghost2most
quote:
Very sad, but the parents are probably in denial and delusional
Let's say you're right (and you probably are), it's still their kid. If they are paying for the expenses what's wrong with at least letting the kid die at home?
Posted on 6/30/17 at 1:10 pm to Masterag
Zing
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News