task0778
Diamond Member
RIP little guy. You touched a lot of hearts during your time with us.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Exactly what I thought. Prohibit people from spending their money on their health care. Confiscate it and spend it how the government sees fit.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
What could WE have done with that money? Who is WE? Do you propose some sort of civil forfeiture so the government can steal it?
Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
Correct it's their money, but when it runs out (or they choose to stop spending it), who turns off the switch? The parents? The taxpayers? A state designated executioner?It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
What could WE have done with that money? Who is WE? Do you propose some sort of civil forfeiture so the government can steal it?
Exactly what I thought. Prohibit people from spending their money on their health care. Confiscate it and spend it how the government sees fit.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
It's their money! Why is this so hard to understand. It was an experimental treatment if it doesn't work, the patient dies. Maybe something is learned to make it work next time or the time after that. That's what experimental treatments are all about. How many people died before there was a treatment for malaria or the black plague or cancer treatments?Correct it's their money, but when it runs out (or they choose to stop spending it), who turns off the switch? The parents? The taxpayers? A state designated executioner?It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
What could WE have done with that money? Who is WE? Do you propose some sort of civil forfeiture so the government can steal it?
No. Insurance companies really are "death panels". They cap expenditures made on saying lives and they rarely, if ever, authorize anything experimental or risky.Exactly what I thought. Prohibit people from spending their money on their health care. Confiscate it and spend it how the government sees fit.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
The British government spent a small fortune keeping little Charlie on life support for a year. Would an American insurance company have authorized the level of care that this baby received, given his prognosis?
If you think they would, I have a ski resort in Miami I would like to sell you.
It's a national healthcare system, single payer, ergo, it's "the People's money". National Health Service (England) - WikipediaIt's their money! Why is this so hard to understand. It was an experimental treatment if it doesn't work, the patient dies. Maybe something is learned to make it work next time or the time after that. That's what experimental treatments are all about. How many people died before there was a treatment for malaria or the black plague or cancer treatments?Correct it's their money, but when it runs out (or they choose to stop spending it), who turns off the switch? The parents? The taxpayers? A state designated executioner?It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
What could WE have done with that money? Who is WE? Do you propose some sort of civil forfeiture so the government can steal it?
You can afford a new car. You have the money to buy a Rolls Royce the government decides you can drive a Honda. It will do the same thing, get you from place to place. How many immunizations can a Rolls Royce buy?
That's not my understanding of events. Yes, the parents were taking donations to send the kid to the US, but I do not believe they were paying for current expenses. I could be wrong but couldn't find anything other than England's national healthcare system.Once the family said they were paying, the government should have no further interest in the child. Once the family said they were paying out of pocket, an American Insurance company would not have stopped them from receiving the care they paid for.
Under socialized medicine scientific innovation is frowned upon. That's the take away from this. No experimentation, no new treatments, no medical advancement. Why? Because the very sick might live and under socialized medicine the savings occurs only when people die.
Insurance companies?This is the Death Panel Sarah Palin spoke of.....
Since the parents were Middle Class, the kid would have been dead as soon as the insurance money ran out if it'd been in America.Infanticide.
Innocent child killed by nationalized medicine and its handmaiden courts.
Just exactly what The Democrat Party of Death wants for ALL Americans.
Since the parents were Middle Class, the kid would have been dead as soon as the insurance money ran out if it'd been in America.Infanticide.
Innocent child killed by nationalized medicine and its handmaiden courts.
Just exactly what The Democrat Party of Death wants for ALL Americans.
How many here have run up against their limit on insurance or know someone who has? IRL, not the fucking Internet or "I heard from my sister's friend's cousin...."