Government has no business in health care.

[Hank77]

I never said I was against the government regulations on healthcare

I thought that was what you were saying because....
I said....

Have wages kept up with the cost of health care? No

You responded.....

It isn't the governments business to control either.

I took that as, it isn't the government's business to control either wages or healthcare (healthcare insurance).
To regulate is to control.
So what did you mean by that statement?

 

[Hank77]

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.

The ACA makes certain protections nationwide rather than by the individual state. No state has protected individuals from being turned down because of a pre-existing condition, or what an insurance company may determine is a pre-existing condition even when it isn't.

But the government has no business taking federal funds and running a for-profit business with it

Is funding the military from taxation a for profit business?

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

Someone not having insurance cost others, who do have insurance, higher medical costs.
The only way to keep that from being the case would be to refuse services to anyone who cannot pay cash at the time of service and does not have insurance.
That is impossible even to know at the time emergency services are needed.

 

[bhsmte]

It isn't the governments business to control either.

Can you answer post #71?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think we should look at how other countries have solved the problem of access and affordability of medical care---especially when they have succeeded in providing medical care to all at a hugely lower per capita cost. Then we should follow suit. It is especially interesting to note that NONE of them has been able to do that without virtually a complete government takeover.

Single payer now.

Given that health care is necessary for human survival, and given that experience shows it is MOST affordable under government-run single payer systems, I strongly disagree with "no government intervention," which, in effect, would be a death sentence for millions.

I disagree that we should be forced to have insurance for much of anything I PARTICULARLY disagree with the idea that we should have insurance for things that we KNOW will not happen or are VERY unlikely such as paying for exams for the other gender's body parts or paying for medical care involving babies and having them when you either are done or do notintend to have them at all.

 

[hislegacy]

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.

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"?

What flies in the face of all this reasoning is the simple fact is that the parents do not have the right to get their child treatment without the courts permission. Even though the treatment would cost the health system NOTHING.

 

[hislegacy]

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"?

Make him worse than taking him off lifecsupport and watching him die?

 

[Hank77]

Even though the treatment would cost the health system NOTHING.

It will cost nothing for the treatment and care at the present time.
If Charlie were to live who will be responsible for his medical care and other care needs for the rest of his life?

 

[hislegacy]

Are you ok with alcohol being legal? Alcohol kills more people, causes more health problems and ruins more families than drugs.

Can you answer post #71?

Answer to post 71.

Alcohol, unlike dope, is not illegal. I don't drink, celebrating 29 years sober, I support established laws. If it becomes illegal, I support it. Same way if drugs become legal. I support established law. If I don't like it, then I become proactive in trying to change it.

Please note: AND THIS IS IMPORTANT

I believe adults are and should be accountable for their decisions and actions.

If I spend a life time or even a season of allowing poisons into my body, be it smoke, drugs alcohol or dangerous sex habits - I should bear the responsibility for those decisions and not expect the government or anyone else to pay for the results of those decisions.

as for the other questions.

Legislature should legislate, not run businesses. I believe there should be federal guidelines (min wage, etc) including cost oversight.

Companies then should be held accountable to those guidelines. And that is the extent. Guiding, enforcing not administrating.

 

[hislegacy]

It will cost nothing for the treatment and care at the present time.
If Charlie were to live who will be responsible for his medical care and other care needs for the rest of his life?

The exact same people who would if they had the cure over there.

Have we reduced the value of human life down to what it costs? Please don't cure the child, let him die so it will not cost too much.

 

[bhsmte]

Answer to post 71.

Alcohol, unlike dope, is not illegal. I don't drink, celebrating 29 years sober, I support established laws. If it becomes illegal, I support it. Same way if drugs become legal. I support established law. If I don't like it, then I become proactive in trying to change it.

Please note: AND THIS IS IMPORTANT

I believe adults are and should be accountable for their decisions and actions.

If I spend a life time or even a season of allowing poisons into my body, be it smoke, drugs alcohol or dangerous sex habits - I should bear the responsibility for those decisions and not expect the government or anyone else to pay for the results of those decisions.

as for the other questions.

Legislature should legislate, not run businesses. I believe there should be federal guidelines (min wage, etc) including cost oversight.

Companies then should be held accountable to those guidelines. And that is the extent. Guiding, enforcing not administrating.

If you support established law, than you support Roe vs Wade correct?

 

[hislegacy]

If you support established law, than you support Roe vs Wade correct?

Yes I do. And I actively work at getting it overturned. I invest my time and finances in doing so.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I do. And I actively work at getting it overturned. I invest my time and finances in doing so.

You support Roe vs Wade, as established law, but want it overturned?

 

[Hank77]

The exact same people who would if they had the cure over there.

Who? Please be specific.

Have we reduced the value of human life down to what it costs? Please don't cure the child, let him die so it will not cost too much.

You were the one that brought up the fact that they had the money to pay for the trip, etc.
So the logical sequence to that thought is who will pay for everything when that money runs out?

 

[hislegacy]

Who? Please be specific.

What's with you and specificity? If you want to know who pays for healthcare in the U.K. Specifically look it up yourself.

Thank you and good luck on your endeavors.

Warmest Regards
Hislegacy
Joe

 

[hislegacy]

You support Roe vs Wade, as established law, but want it overturned?

With all my heart, prayers and personal support every chance I get.

To define: by support I mean. That I recognize it is the law of the land and people who choose to take the life of their child in the womb are allowed to by law.

That is also why I openly work to get it overturned.

 

[hislegacy]

Who? Please be specific.

You were the one that brought up the fact that they had the money to pay for the trip, etc.
So the logical sequence to that thought is who will pay for everything when that money runs out?

Question. If this was your child would you choose to exhaust every avenue to help him, or would you let your son die and never know if he would have survived?

 

[camille70]

Apologizes if this has already been posted...


These Americans Hated the Health Law. Until the Idea of Repeal Sank In.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

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.

Even in the US, if there is disagreement between physicians and parents about care a child should or should not get, the courts may become involved. There are many steps before it gets to that point, but ultimately, if a dispute cannot be resolved, it goes to a judge.

 

[camille70]

Beau Willimon on Twitter

 

[bhsmte]

With all my heart, prayers and personal support every chance I get.

To define: by support I mean. That I recognize it is the law of the land and people who choose to take the life of their child in the womb are allowed to by law.

That is also why I openly work to get it overturned.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that.