Government has no business in health care.

[Hank77]

You wouldn't have to barged, that is what health insurance companies do. I don't think the Federal government should be running the industry. I'm not saying get rid of the industry.

So you are happy with profit seeking insurance companies determining what treatment you will get for your premiums?

 

[Hank77]

It isn't the governments business to control either.

No safety net, no minimum wage, OK. So you are for going back to the robber baron days when young children had to work because the parents couldn't make enough money for the family to survive. Gotch'a, boy those were the days. Let's Make America Great Again.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm confused.... Which is it?

You need to follow along.

 

[hislegacy]

So you are happy with profit seeking insurance companies determining what treatment you will get for your premiums?

ACA did nothing to change that, except make it more complex.

 

[hislegacy]

You need to follow along.

Its only two post, fully quoted and showing an obvious contradiction.

 

[hislegacy]

No safety net, no minimum wage, OK. So you are for going back to the robber baron days when young children had to work because the parents couldn't make enough money for the family to survive. Gotch'a, boy those were the days. Let's Make America Great Again.

Did I say that??

 

[Go Braves]

You know there is more to that story, don't dishonestly take it out of context.

Exactly. It's extremely dishonest to start up a conversation, not bother to reveal the truth about this poor baby's condition.

 

[David Brider]

Why are they begging the government for permission, if they could have been here a month ago without their permission?

They're not begging the government for permission. The government has nothing to do with this. Read the link you posted.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

This child you are talking about. Is so brain dead, he cant breath on his own. And cant move his legs or arms. But If a baby, kid or grow up. That has no brain damage. But has cancer, that is treatable. Gets turned down by the insurance company. Because the treatment is expensive. So the insurance company rather not waste the money. Because insurance companies are only in this business to make money. The government would give cancer treatment to these people. That aren't so brain damaged a chance. Some reason, I trust the government over money maker insurance companies.

 

[hislegacy]

From the link. Caption:

Parents beg judge to let their son live as they fight doctors' advice to end life support

A judge will rule if their son will be kept alive, or if they can bring the child to the US for treatment.

Funding for the trip and treatment is being donated.

 

[Hank77]

ACA did nothing to change that, except make it more complex.

Speaking here about your views of independence from government regulating your health care compared to your view of an insurance company regulating your health care.

 

[Hank77]

Did I say that??

History repeats itself when men repeat the same things they did before. The outcome may not look exactly as it did but the outcome will be the same.

 

[David Brider]

From the link. Caption:

Parents beg judge to let their son live as they fight doctors' advice to end life support

A judge will rule if their son will be kept alive, or if they can bring the child to the US for treatment.

Funding for the trip and treatment is being donated.

Yes, exactly. Not the government.

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, exactly. Not the government.

Whom do you think the judges represent and work for?

 

[hislegacy]

Speaking here about your views of independence from government regulating your health care compared to your view of an insurance company regulating your health care.

I never said I was against the government regulations on healthcare. I have distinctly said I believe six times now I am not in favor of the government running or being in the business of healthcare.

I'm doing my best to express this concept that while we live under rules and regulations and that's all fine. But to expand government responsibility to the point of running 16 of the nations economy is what I don't agree with.

So let me state clearly and distinctly that I do not have a problem let me repeat this I do not have a problem with government oversight.

Oversight that Is the keyword I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect the individuals.

Again I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect the individuals I hope I make myself clear on that but let me state it again I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect individual.

But the government has no business taking federal funds and running a for-profit business with it. Nor should an individual be forced to purchase a service that they do not want or to be fined in Taxes thousands of dollars if they choose not to pay their own money for a service rendered.

 

[David Brider]

Whom do you think the judges represent and work for?

There's a difference between *working* for the government and actually *being* the government.

 

[hislegacy]

There's a difference between *working* for the government and actually *being* the government.

Last attempt:

The judiciary is part of the government.
The judiciary is an arm of the government.

When you have to ask permission from an arm of the government to take your child someplace, that is not having freedom.

 

[David Brider]

Last attempt:

The judiciary is part of the government.
The judiciary is an arm of the government.

Judges are employed by the government, but they also have to function independently of it. Otherwise, those in government would be above the law, which obviously can't happen. Maybe judges in the US are "an arm of the government," but in the UK, they're not, in any meaningful sense. Their job is to adjudicate on cases brought before them, not to promote any particular government line or policy.

 

[Belk]

I never said I was against the government regulations on healthcare. I have distinctly said I believe six times now I am not in favor of the government running or being in the business of healthcare.

I'm doing my best to express this concept that while we live under rules and regulations and that's all fine. But to expand government responsibility to the point of running 16 of the nations economy is what I don't agree with.

So let me state clearly and distinctly that I do not have a problem let me repeat this I do not have a problem with government oversight.

Oversight that Is the keyword I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect the individuals.

Again I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect the individuals I hope I make myself clear on that but let me state it again I believe there should be rules and regulations to protect individual.

But the government has no business taking federal funds and running a for-profit business with it. Nor should an individual be forced to purchase a service that they do not want or to be fined in Taxes thousands of dollars if they choose not to pay their own money for a service rendered.

I believe the idea is that health care would be a nonprofit much like all the other health care systems in other countries.

 

[David Brider]

When you have to ask permission from an arm of the government to take your child someplace, that is not having freedom.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it's not the judges who are opposed to Charlie's parents taking him to the USA, but the doctors who are charged with looking after Charlie. They have stated that they don't believe the experimental nucleoside therapy would be in any way beneficial to him, and may even make him worse. Even the US doctor proposing the treatment has said that it is "very unlikely that he will improve". What are the judges supposed to do in this case - just ignore the medical opinion and say, "yeah, sure, if you can raise the £1.2 million, just take your kid off to the USA and risk making him even worse"?