- 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
re: Big Win for Socialized Medicine -- Baby Charlie Gard dies after life support withdrawn
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:10 pm to LuckyTiger
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:10 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
We will soon be hearing more stories like this one, right here in the USA.
Government>individual.
Soon.
"Will be"? "Soon"? How about 2005?
Sun Hudson
In Texas, under a death panel law signed by Governor George W. Bush.
1
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Big Win for Socialized Medicine
politicizing dead babies. awesome.
proud day for you and your family i'm sure
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:14 pm to chryso
quote:
We all would. There was not a slim chance of success. There was no chance of success.
Like I said in another reply,
If that were a fact then this wouldn't have been a news story
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:14 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:
In Texas, under a death panel law signed by Governor George W. Bush.
Did the government forbid the couple from using their own finds to seek treatment elsewhere? You left this out.
quote:
Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun.
Huge difference between that case and Charlie Gard.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:16 pm to Kino74
quote:
quote:
In Texas, under a death panel law signed by Governor George W. Bush.
Did the government forbid the couple from using their own finds to seek treatment elsewhere? You left this out.
quote:
Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun.
Huge difference between that case and Charlie Gard.
So killing babies is okay if it's the cheap alternative?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:16 pm to rintintin
quote:
But the fact of the matter is, we just saw a judge decide on whether parents could try to save their child. That in and of itself is scary.
there is no cure for this disease, its a genetic disorder that prevents normal growth. Charlie' short life was going to filled with pain and suffering. There was no saving him, or treating him. He was being kept alive by machines because his muscles werent strong enough to even breathe for him.
quote:
The usual suspects will be here shortly saying it was the best decision, the parents were delusional, the baby had no chance, blah blah blah.
I love how flippantly you parse things. Its obvious you arent really interested in all facets of this case. Would you want to live that way, and if you didnt have a voice of your own would you want someone to advocate for you to have a pain free, peaceful passing.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 2:17 pm to asurob1
quote:
You already hear stories like this one...thanks to corporate insurance...but by all means keep complaining that the insurance industry has "your" best interests at heart.
How does "corporate insurance" prevent people from seeking care outside their coverage if they can find it available and they are somehow able to pay for it on their own?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:20 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:
So killing babies is okay if it's the cheap alternative?
No it's not. There is a difference between a facility or any system not able to afford care whether that be technology, personnel or any other resource versus hindering a family from usinh their own funds to seek elsewhere.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:26 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
This was about the rights of the child vs the rights of the parents.
So dumb.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:30 pm to roadGator
Liberals are bringing this here. They are going to give the State this type of power over people's lives. Liberals are incredibly stupid and hateful people.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
It's shameful that you're trying to politicize something that doesn't have a political component.
Par for the course, but still shameful.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:52 pm to BamaAtl
Dude, you spend your life politicizing people's healthcare. When your policies kill people, you run away and scold people for pointing out how your policies will get more people killed.
Clown.
Clown.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:59 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The best doctors in the world could do nothing for him. You'd rather he continue living on life support?
Pretty sure there were doctors that wanted to try something for him, and the gov said no you can just keep him on life support
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:03 pm to FutureRATeammember
quote:
Dude, you spend your life politicizing people's healthcare.
"Politicizing something that doesn't have a political component" =/= discussing the politics of the ACA.
You should learn that.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:04 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
It's shameful that you're trying to politicize something that doesn't have a political component.
Par for the course, but still shameful.
It is shameful the amount of lying that goes on in support of the single payer fraud.
Sarah Palin was ridiculed for pointing out that obamacare will have death panels. That is exactly what this was. The UK is your pot at the end of the rainbow. We will have exactly the same.
You cannot give away all the shite you want to give away.
Of course if you are rich enough you can buy your own just like in the UK. If their system is so wonderful why do people who ca avoid it do so?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:05 pm to gthog61
quote:
That is exactly what this was
That is not what this was.
The decision was not based on funding, it was based on the interests of the patient.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:20 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
The best doctors in the world could do nothing for him. You'd rather he continue living on life support?
This. The British powers that be in this deserve some shite for warehousing this kid, but this was always a horrible sample case for this. This boys chances were abysmal. Chances of him being "normal" were zero.
Sad all way around. But that kid didn't have cancer. Cancer would have been easy. He had DNA abnormalities. A horrific disease.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
trying to politicize something
Sorry.
This was the exact result UK Medical Socialists sought.
They sought to not let Baby Charlie Gard out of the NHS clutches, because his parents might be able to get him to the US, even though they claimed they just wanted him to be able to die at home. They won!
The courts forced that outcome on Gard's parents.
The courts found 100% in favor of the system over the Gard family.
That's a win, baby! A win for socialists anyway you take it.
Perhaps you've not followed the case?
They got the exact result they were angling for.
How is that politicized on my part?
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
This was the exact result UK Medical Socialists sought.
In no way is that an accurate or informed statement.
Again, shameful, but par for the course with you.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:32 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Of course it was.
That is exactly what this was
That is not what this was.
quote:Of course it was.
The decision was not based on funding
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News