parents say good by to baby charlie

[OldLady]

Pulling the plug in this case isn't "killing" someone. Denying insurance in this day and age can most certainly mean the difference between a healthy functioning life and a life either shortened or with disabling medical problems that could have been prevented or treated at an earlier stage.

The difference between liberals an conservatives is this.

You want everybody to have a piece of PAPER, that provides MINIMAL, RATIONED care.

We want to make healthcare AFFORDABLE for the greatest number. We can, and have, provided for those who fall thru the cracks.

We can, and have, provided for those who fall thru the cracks.
I have listened to quite a lot of discussion of who will lose out. Those 50-64 will not be able to afford health insurance. With cuts in assistance from the government (it is cutting hundreds of millions from the budget if it passes, so let's not pretend there aren't massive cuts) I guess anyone who hits 50, unless they are billionaires like Trump, better hope to stay healthy 'til Medicare kicks in.

 

[OldLady]

The damn thing here folks is really simple okay? All human life matters! Now if baby Charlie had been in the womb most if not all you liberals would be yelling my body my choice. You don't give that child any rights until it's out so you liberals acting like it's only human based on that is bullshit and the clarity of your ignorance is glowing bright!

That child is human the minute it's conceived. But no! Not to you. Now you have a doubled edged sword here. Death panels when you are to disabled or just to damn old no matter how much money you got. The president of the united States can't even save your damn life! A known billionaire cannot save your damn life!

That child is ordered by a damn liberal court to die and that moral high ground you claim becomes a pile of shit.
Your disrespect for human life is disgusting and this death will be the result of your so called better educated minds! And right now you deserve every ******* guilty feeling you have.

Fury

It's kind of hard to keep track of how you guys really feel about health care. It's disrespect for human life to allow a terminal baby to die by unplugging him from the artificial means of life support that have been keeping his tiny body "alive" in the most elementary sense of the word. Yet the Republicans in Congress are proposing a healthcare bill that will throw 20-30 million people off health insurance. I don't think you've really got any right to claim moral high ground, either.

This is just not true, it comes from the CBO's score of the House passed bill to repeal and replace the ACA, which as we all know an't going anywhere. And since there's no other GOP plan, to say that is the going to be the end result of whatever they finally come up with (if anything) is bogus. And that's in the 1st place, it's not like the CBO's scoring has much of a track record for being even close to the truth; if you look at their numbers for the ACA when it was first passed you'll see a very large difference between what they said would happen and what actually did happen. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about sabotage by the Repubs; bullshit, this was a total democratic party disaster they they totally own.

The truth is that most of those 20-30 million who will lose health insurance are people that didn't have coverage in the first place. When Obamacare first passed, CBO anticipated that by 2016, 21 million Americans would enroll in the law's exchanges. When 2016 rolled around, the real number was just about 10 million. Quite a large miss, no? And the CBO's score for the original House Bill passed back in May is still off by several millions getting coverage. And many of those who did get coverage did so because they forced to by the mandate, buy the HCI or pay the penalty (I beg your pardon, the tax). Take away the mandate and there would/will be several million who will decide for themselves not to buy coverage; that ain't the same as being thrown off health insurance.

So, the 20-30 million people thrown off coverage is not true, and by the way having coverage is not the same as getting quality health care. There are quite a few people who are on ObamaCare but can't afford to use it, due to high deductibles and co-pays. Or the millions of new people on Medicaid that can't find a doctor who will take new Medicaid patients. And let us not forget that we do not have the final version of whatever the GOP is going to end up with, but I am quite sure there will be many on the Let who will demagogue it to death, without regard to the real truth.

Which is not to say the Repubs have the moral high ground either. It is unfortunate that as the ACA is imploding as we speak the political parties are entrenched in their respective positions and are unwilling to compromise at all unless each gets their way. Still, the public seems to be saying they don't want the ACA to be repealed, which is no surprise, everybody loves free stuff. But the problem is the costs of Medicare and Medicare are rising thanks to the ACA, and the health care outcomes are no better than they were before the ACA took effect. That's my opinion from what I've read, had we not passed the ACA I think we'd still be right where we are now.

This past weekend, our senator, Susan Collins, said they do NOT know which bill they will be voting on tomorrow--if it will be a procedural vote to debate Bill #1, Bill#2 or the Repeal alone bill. She's said she won't vote to proceed, because she wants a bipartisan debate and something that will actually give Americans a decent plan.
I agree it's a hot mess, and I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats for it--there are many reasons why our healthcare costs more than anywhere else in the world and damned if I know how to fix it. If affordable insurance or any insurance at all hadn't been offered to Americans these past 8 years, people would still be shrugging and saying thems the breaks if someone got sick and they couldn't afford to pay the bills. There would be a large % of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance and thems the breaks, oh well. But we DID have it offered to us and a large # of working poor and people with pre-existing conditions got covered and now the Republicans are going to take it away through Medicaid cuts and changes to the requirements. That's all people know and they aren't liking it. At. All.

Don't understand that, if you have a procedural vote to put the bill (whichever) on the floor how can the debate not be bi-partisan? I'm getting really tired of this crap where the majority party won't open up debate on a bill if they don't have the votes in their own caucus to pass it. I hate that, we need something better than what we've got now AND better than what we had before the ACA came along.

It won't be bipartisan because as long as it REPEALS ACA, the Democrats have refused to play. I think that's wrong too.
I agree with you 100%.

 

[OldLady]

State-by-State Estimates of Reductions in Federal Medicaid Funding Under Repeal of the ACA Medicaid Expansion

There's a lot of plain old facts here. People currently covered under the Medicaid expansion (30 states) are going to lose coverage. People working for smaller employers who will no longer have to provide insurance will lose coverage (4 mil). And a whole lot of people who already can't afford to buy health insurance will continue to not be able to buy health insurance, since premiums are expected to double. The cuts in Medicaid do more than just hurt individuals. The cuts in funding are part of the reason rural hospitals and nursing homes are closing, causing more and more areas to be extremely underserved.
I don't know, maybe it's ALL lies, and if the Republicans push it through we'll all be pleasantly surprised. But I'd feel more confident about that if SOMEONE/ANYONE other than Trump supporters who don't know any more about it than I do was actually saying it was a GOOD PLAN.

Most trump supporters i know (IRL and on here) dont like it.
Why do you think you can get a more honest response from someone who isnt a trump supporter?

Um, a lot of the Trump supporters I talk to here don't value facts much. I'm not saying a Trump supporter can't be honest and factual, that would be great. Actually I was thinking more of print media and news on tv, where I get most of my information. Ain't many people lovin it. And I'm not watching cable news, either.

3/4 of the people here dont care for facts much, OL

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

 

[TNHarley]

Most trump supporters i know (IRL and on here) dont like it.
Why do you think you can get a more honest response from someone who isnt a trump supporter?

Um, a lot of the Trump supporters I talk to here don't value facts much. I'm not saying a Trump supporter can't be honest and factual, that would be great. Actually I was thinking more of print media and news on tv, where I get most of my information. Ain't many people lovin it. And I'm not watching cable news, either.

3/4 of the people here dont care for facts much, OL

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

 

[OldLady]

Um, a lot of the Trump supporters I talk to here don't value facts much. I'm not saying a Trump supporter can't be honest and factual, that would be great. Actually I was thinking more of print media and news on tv, where I get most of my information. Ain't many people lovin it. And I'm not watching cable news, either.

3/4 of the people here dont care for facts much, OL

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

 

[task0778]

Back to Charlie Hurd, I think the issue needs to be faced: there are going to be cases where someone, a baby or child or adult, has a life-threatening disease that is very expensive to treat that most families will not be able to afford. It's one thing if the family has the funds to pay for that treatment, in that case I think the gov't should have no say over the parents decision to try whatever treatment no matter what the chances are for a positive outcome. Might need to have an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak for themselves, do we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons? To me there's a difference between living and existing, I'm getting the sense that Charlie wasn't really living but I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

The other thing is cost, what if the family doesn't have the funding to pay for the expensive treatment? If the family has HCI, then the policy has to be honored by the company, but what if there's a contractual limit on the company's liability? Who pays the rest? What if the family has no insurance in the first place and doesn't have the funds necessary, what then? What if the patient is not a baby or a child but a 70 year old person, does that make a difference? I don't think we have the money to pay for everyone's expensive treatments that need it, do we want an IPAB to make the tough calls? An unelected bunch of people, some of whom I assume are medically trained and know something about health care outcomes? Not the easiest dilemma to resolve is it?

This was not about $, though. Charlie's parents had raised millions, hadn't they? This was not about $. It was about the other thing you said--an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak themselves, so we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons?
I still think for most of the conservatives saying tsk tsk about Charlie, you will find them arguing in other threads how funding anyone's healthcare is not their responsibility, and screw 'em all. So let's back off the Death Panels horseshit, alright?

I'm good with backing off the death panels thing if the Left will back off the throwing Grandma off a cliff thing too. Too much demagoguery going on for too important an issue to cloud it up with politics IMHO. Boils down to what kind of society you want to live in, do you respect life or not and the corollary to that is do you respect the quality of that life. Which is where health care comes into play, how does one oppose abortion (right to life) and oppose a reasonable approach to healthcare for those who cannot afford what they need? Seems a bit contradictory. And then there's the other side of the coin, what about the costs involved, who pays? And what is a reasonable approach? Serious questions indeed, and not many of our leaders in Washington are being that reasonable. JMO.

 

[TNHarley]

3/4 of the people here dont care for facts much, OL

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

LOL ok!

 

[DarkFury]

3/4 of the people here dont care for facts much, OL

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

Yes there is.

 

[OldLady]

Back to Charlie Hurd, I think the issue needs to be faced: there are going to be cases where someone, a baby or child or adult, has a life-threatening disease that is very expensive to treat that most families will not be able to afford. It's one thing if the family has the funds to pay for that treatment, in that case I think the gov't should have no say over the parents decision to try whatever treatment no matter what the chances are for a positive outcome. Might need to have an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak for themselves, do we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons? To me there's a difference between living and existing, I'm getting the sense that Charlie wasn't really living but I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

The other thing is cost, what if the family doesn't have the funding to pay for the expensive treatment? If the family has HCI, then the policy has to be honored by the company, but what if there's a contractual limit on the company's liability? Who pays the rest? What if the family has no insurance in the first place and doesn't have the funds necessary, what then? What if the patient is not a baby or a child but a 70 year old person, does that make a difference? I don't think we have the money to pay for everyone's expensive treatments that need it, do we want an IPAB to make the tough calls? An unelected bunch of people, some of whom I assume are medically trained and know something about health care outcomes? Not the easiest dilemma to resolve is it?

This was not about $, though. Charlie's parents had raised millions, hadn't they? This was not about $. It was about the other thing you said--an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak themselves, so we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons?
I still think for most of the conservatives saying tsk tsk about Charlie, you will find them arguing in other threads how funding anyone's healthcare is not their responsibility, and screw 'em all. So let's back off the Death Panels horseshit, alright?

I'm good with backing off the death panels thing if the Left will back off the throwing Grandma off a cliff thing too. Too much demagoguery going on for too important an issue to cloud it up with politics IMHO. Boils down to what kind of society you want to live in, do you respect life or not and the corollary to that is do you respect the quality of that life. Which is where health care comes into play, how does one oppose abortion (right to life) and oppose a reasonable approach to healthcare for those who cannot afford what they need? Seems a bit contradictory. And then there's the other side of the coin, what about the costs involved, who pays? And what is a reasonable approach? Serious questions indeed, and not many of our leaders in Washington are being that reasonable. JMO.

The one place everyone should be looking is the one place they aren't. The costs of health care. Not the insurance to pay for it, or the federal benefits to cover it, but the costs themselves. Why are they so high and what can we do about it? Until that is tackled, we will continue going 'round in circles.

 

[OldLady]

TN, I'm sure you would put me in that number, as well. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

Yes there is.

Show me.

 

[TNHarley]

An "honest answer" based on bias

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

Yes there is.

Show me.

just go back a couple pages

 

[strollingbones]

medical costs are out of hand....compare us drugs prices with canadian drug prices

 

[task0778]

Back to Charlie Hurd, I think the issue needs to be faced: there are going to be cases where someone, a baby or child or adult, has a life-threatening disease that is very expensive to treat that most families will not be able to afford. It's one thing if the family has the funds to pay for that treatment, in that case I think the gov't should have no say over the parents decision to try whatever treatment no matter what the chances are for a positive outcome. Might need to have an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak for themselves, do we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons? To me there's a difference between living and existing, I'm getting the sense that Charlie wasn't really living but I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

The other thing is cost, what if the family doesn't have the funding to pay for the expensive treatment? If the family has HCI, then the policy has to be honored by the company, but what if there's a contractual limit on the company's liability? Who pays the rest? What if the family has no insurance in the first place and doesn't have the funds necessary, what then? What if the patient is not a baby or a child but a 70 year old person, does that make a difference? I don't think we have the money to pay for everyone's expensive treatments that need it, do we want an IPAB to make the tough calls? An unelected bunch of people, some of whom I assume are medically trained and know something about health care outcomes? Not the easiest dilemma to resolve is it?

This was not about $, though. Charlie's parents had raised millions, hadn't they? This was not about $. It was about the other thing you said--an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak themselves, so we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons?
I still think for most of the conservatives saying tsk tsk about Charlie, you will find them arguing in other threads how funding anyone's healthcare is not their responsibility, and screw 'em all. So let's back off the Death Panels horseshit, alright?

I'm good with backing off the death panels thing if the Left will back off the throwing Grandma off a cliff thing too. Too much demagoguery going on for too important an issue to cloud it up with politics IMHO. Boils down to what kind of society you want to live in, do you respect life or not and the corollary to that is do you respect the quality of that life. Which is where health care comes into play, how does one oppose abortion (right to life) and oppose a reasonable approach to healthcare for those who cannot afford what they need? Seems a bit contradictory. And then there's the other side of the coin, what about the costs involved, who pays? And what is a reasonable approach? Serious questions indeed, and not many of our leaders in Washington are being that reasonable. JMO.

The one place everyone should be looking is the one place they aren't. The costs of health care. Not the insurance to pay for it, or the federal benefits to cover it, but the costs themselves. Why are they so high and what can we do about it? Until that is tackled, we will continue going 'round in circles.

Agreed. the system itself has a big problem with unaffordability. I see it as a 2 prong problem that both ends should be addressed. No matter what changes are made, we're still going to have a problem with the Charlie Hurds of the world, and not just babies either.

PS: I just saw a report on TV that says 73% of the CBO estimate for the numbers of people who will lose their coverage if the ACA is repealed would be due to people who decide not to buy HCI if there's no mandate to do so. The rest of those people are those who will get squeezed out of Medicaid, and we're going to have to do something about that. Maybe an Uninsured HC program that covers emergency care or something, perhaps paid for by a 1% payroll or consumption tax. Looks to me like forcing people to buy HCI or pay a penalty has not worked. However, it can't be argued that if you cut Medicaid then it seems logical that some people won't get health care under that program.

 

[DarkFury]

medical costs are out of hand....compare us drugs prices with canadian drug prices

So the infant can die but you need your weed! And here I thought you were a selfish morally twisted ignorant *****? Imagine I was right!

 

[OldLady]

Where's the bias? Or does the fact that you don't like it either mean you are biased too?

in your posts

There's no bias here, fool.

Yes there is.

Show me.

just go back a couple pages

Well, how the **** do you expect me to pick out what you consider a biased position when I obviously don't think I'm biased. Either show me what you're talking about or STFU about it.

 

[OldLady]

medical costs are out of hand....compare us drugs prices with canadian drug prices

So the infant can die but you need your weed! And here I thought you were a selfish morally twisted ignorant *****? Imagine I was right!

That argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[OldLady]

Back to Charlie Hurd, I think the issue needs to be faced: there are going to be cases where someone, a baby or child or adult, has a life-threatening disease that is very expensive to treat that most families will not be able to afford. It's one thing if the family has the funds to pay for that treatment, in that case I think the gov't should have no say over the parents decision to try whatever treatment no matter what the chances are for a positive outcome. Might need to have an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak for themselves, do we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons? To me there's a difference between living and existing, I'm getting the sense that Charlie wasn't really living but I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

The other thing is cost, what if the family doesn't have the funding to pay for the expensive treatment? If the family has HCI, then the policy has to be honored by the company, but what if there's a contractual limit on the company's liability? Who pays the rest? What if the family has no insurance in the first place and doesn't have the funds necessary, what then? What if the patient is not a baby or a child but a 70 year old person, does that make a difference? I don't think we have the money to pay for everyone's expensive treatments that need it, do we want an IPAB to make the tough calls? An unelected bunch of people, some of whom I assume are medically trained and know something about health care outcomes? Not the easiest dilemma to resolve is it?

This was not about $, though. Charlie's parents had raised millions, hadn't they? This was not about $. It was about the other thing you said--an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak themselves, so we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons?
I still think for most of the conservatives saying tsk tsk about Charlie, you will find them arguing in other threads how funding anyone's healthcare is not their responsibility, and screw 'em all. So let's back off the Death Panels horseshit, alright?

I'm good with backing off the death panels thing if the Left will back off the throwing Grandma off a cliff thing too. Too much demagoguery going on for too important an issue to cloud it up with politics IMHO. Boils down to what kind of society you want to live in, do you respect life or not and the corollary to that is do you respect the quality of that life. Which is where health care comes into play, how does one oppose abortion (right to life) and oppose a reasonable approach to healthcare for those who cannot afford what they need? Seems a bit contradictory. And then there's the other side of the coin, what about the costs involved, who pays? And what is a reasonable approach? Serious questions indeed, and not many of our leaders in Washington are being that reasonable. JMO.

The one place everyone should be looking is the one place they aren't. The costs of health care. Not the insurance to pay for it, or the federal benefits to cover it, but the costs themselves. Why are they so high and what can we do about it? Until that is tackled, we will continue going 'round in circles.

Agreed. the system itself has a big problem with unaffordability. I see it as a 2 prong problem that both ends should be addressed. No matter what changes are made, we're still going to have a problem with the Charlie Hurds of the world, and not just babies either.

PS: I just saw a report on TV that says 73% of the CBO estimate for the numbers of people who will lose their coverage if the ACA is repealed would be due to people who decide not to buy HCI if there's no mandate to do so. The rest of those people are those who will get squeezed out of Medicaid, and we're going to have to do something about that. Maybe an Uninsured HC program that covers emergency care or something, perhaps paid for by a 1% payroll or consumption tax. Looks to me like forcing people to buy HCI or pay a penalty has not worked. However, it can't be argued that if you cut Medicaid then it seems logical that some people won't get health care under that program.

73% sounds high, but if that is the case, and people are not buying it because they don't want it, not because it's too expensive, that's a relief.

 

[task0778]

Back to Charlie Hurd, I think the issue needs to be faced: there are going to be cases where someone, a baby or child or adult, has a life-threatening disease that is very expensive to treat that most families will not be able to afford. It's one thing if the family has the funds to pay for that treatment, in that case I think the gov't should have no say over the parents decision to try whatever treatment no matter what the chances are for a positive outcome. Might need to have an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak for themselves, do we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons? To me there's a difference between living and existing, I'm getting the sense that Charlie wasn't really living but I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

The other thing is cost, what if the family doesn't have the funding to pay for the expensive treatment? If the family has HCI, then the policy has to be honored by the company, but what if there's a contractual limit on the company's liability? Who pays the rest? What if the family has no insurance in the first place and doesn't have the funds necessary, what then? What if the patient is not a baby or a child but a 70 year old person, does that make a difference? I don't think we have the money to pay for everyone's expensive treatments that need it, do we want an IPAB to make the tough calls? An unelected bunch of people, some of whom I assume are medically trained and know something about health care outcomes? Not the easiest dilemma to resolve is it?

This was not about $, though. Charlie's parents had raised millions, hadn't they? This was not about $. It was about the other thing you said--an impartial voice involved that speaks for the patient, especially if the patient cannot speak themselves, so we keep an individual alive who is obviously suffering great pain even if the parents want to do so for whatever reasons?
I still think for most of the conservatives saying tsk tsk about Charlie, you will find them arguing in other threads how funding anyone's healthcare is not their responsibility, and screw 'em all. So let's back off the Death Panels horseshit, alright?

I'm good with backing off the death panels thing if the Left will back off the throwing Grandma off a cliff thing too. Too much demagoguery going on for too important an issue to cloud it up with politics IMHO. Boils down to what kind of society you want to live in, do you respect life or not and the corollary to that is do you respect the quality of that life. Which is where health care comes into play, how does one oppose abortion (right to life) and oppose a reasonable approach to healthcare for those who cannot afford what they need? Seems a bit contradictory. And then there's the other side of the coin, what about the costs involved, who pays? And what is a reasonable approach? Serious questions indeed, and not many of our leaders in Washington are being that reasonable. JMO.

The one place everyone should be looking is the one place they aren't. The costs of health care. Not the insurance to pay for it, or the federal benefits to cover it, but the costs themselves. Why are they so high and what can we do about it? Until that is tackled, we will continue going 'round in circles.

Agreed. the system itself has a big problem with unaffordability. I see it as a 2 prong problem that both ends should be addressed. No matter what changes are made, we're still going to have a problem with the Charlie Hurds of the world, and not just babies either.

PS: I just saw a report on TV that says 73% of the CBO estimate for the numbers of people who will lose their coverage if the ACA is repealed would be due to people who decide not to buy HCI if there's no mandate to do so. The rest of those people are those who will get squeezed out of Medicaid, and we're going to have to do something about that. Maybe an Uninsured HC program that covers emergency care or something, perhaps paid for by a 1% payroll or consumption tax. Looks to me like forcing people to buy HCI or pay a penalty has not worked. However, it can't be argued that if you cut Medicaid then it seems logical that some people won't get health care under that program.

73% sounds high, but if that is the case, and people are not buying it because they don't want it, not because it's too expensive, that's a relief.

I would assume it's a little of both. If you keep the proviso for pre-existing conditions then it's hard to see why most people would buy HCI if they and their families are currently healthy. The Repubs seem to be saying if you make it cheaper then healthy people will buy it, but I'm not seeing that. Few people are going to buy HCI unless and until they need it, especially if they can get covered if and when they do need it. I can't see any other option for that situation than a mandatory uninsured health care tax on everybody, either a payroll tax or a consumption tax that pays for catastrophic and expensive treatment if you need it down the road.

 

[Yarddog]

the one question i have...why not just send the meds over there...what excuse was there for not doing that? and what is so rare about this oral med that it cant be compounded overseas

Because health care IS politicized. A rational mind would have said, if the child is destined to die, just let the parents have their hope in this treatment. After all they are the ones who have to live with knowing wether or not they did everything they could. A government entity handling your health care is more likely to see you as a number on a sheet of paper, everything just done by the book. This is why many people prefer choice in health care and are opposed to concepts like Obama Care and where it eventually leads to.

 

[tinydancer]

'We are so sorry we couldn't save you,' she said.

'We had the chance but we weren't allowed. Sweet dreams baby. Sleep tight our beautiful little boy.'

Charlie Gard’s parents reduce courtroom to tears | Daily Mail Online