Movie Watcher's Oasis Discussion Message Board Forum

Miscellaneous Discussion Boards => Political Discussion Board => Topic started by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:12:33 pm

Title: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:12:33 pm
We haven't talked about this one yet.  I really feel that the UK is trying to cover their asses in all these types of cases.  What I mean is, if this child went to Italy and actually got better, the NHS system would be exposed as being shitty.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/parents-sick-toddler-alfie-evans-make-court-challenge-54725065


Furthermore, THIS is exactly why I have issues with universal health care.  Anytime the government gets their hands on something, we the people are going to lose some rights.  The fact that these PARENTS cannot take THEIR kid somewhere else to get treatment because the UK doctors refuse to treat him is just asinine. 
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:15:37 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:18:30 pm
"Under British law, it is common for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. In such cases, the rights of the child take primacy over the parents' right to decide what's best for their offspring."

That's not the universal healthcare system, this is a case of the child's rights vs the parent's rights. We even see these types of cases here in the United States.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:18:57 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:19:53 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:21:48 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:23:31 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:24:59 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:26:47 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:29:29 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:33:12 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:35:07 pm
If we were to establish universal healthcare, we wouldn't suddenly say "no, you can't take that child elsewhere" because that's not what the court rules in favor of. We have a checks and balance system in place for that very reason.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:35:34 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:38:03 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:40:12 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?  You pointed out a case that wasn't even close to this one.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 04:46:21 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 04:55:30 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 05:05:33 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 05:11:34 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.

It's an example of how Universal Health Care will fall into the hands of the government, and the government will make laws that take away our freedoms. 

You can't guarantee that AT ALL.  If the government didn't control the health care there, you have no idea what the laws would be.  What, you don't think that if the government institutes Universal Health Care here that NO new laws will be created?  You can't be that naive (at least I hope).  There will be laws erected to accompany the new health care, and we don't know what they will be.

And, yes the British government believes the doctors are right in this case.  THAT is the problem.  The government has TOO MUCH input in this case.  And they've been horribly, horribly wrong before...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/ashya-king-cleared-cancer-three-years-parents-abducted-hospital/
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 05:17:14 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.

It's an example of how Universal Health Care will fall into the hands of the government, and the government will make laws that take away our freedoms. 

You can't guarantee that AT ALL.  If the government didn't control the health care there, you have no idea what the laws would be.  What, you don't think that if the government institutes Universal Health Care here that NO new laws will be created?  You can't be that naive (at least I hope).  There will be laws erected to accompany the new health care, and we don't know what they will be.

And, yes the British government believes the doctors are right in this case.  THAT is the problem.  The government has TOO MUCH input in this case.  And they've been horribly, horribly wrong before...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/ashya-king-cleared-cancer-three-years-parents-abducted-hospital/

Dude Iím just arguing that Britainís dumb and theyíve always been dumb. Weíre not that stupid. Gotta have faith in that at least. Iíve seen so many horrifyingly stupid cases that come out of Britain itís insane.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 05:19:15 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.

It's an example of how Universal Health Care will fall into the hands of the government, and the government will make laws that take away our freedoms. 

You can't guarantee that AT ALL.  If the government didn't control the health care there, you have no idea what the laws would be.  What, you don't think that if the government institutes Universal Health Care here that NO new laws will be created?  You can't be that naive (at least I hope).  There will be laws erected to accompany the new health care, and we don't know what they will be.

And, yes the British government believes the doctors are right in this case.  THAT is the problem.  The government has TOO MUCH input in this case.  And they've been horribly, horribly wrong before...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/ashya-king-cleared-cancer-three-years-parents-abducted-hospital/

Dude Iím just arguing that Britainís dumb and theyíve always been dumb. Weíre not that stupid. Gotta have faith in that at least. Iíve seen so many horrifyingly stupid cases that come out of Britain itís insane.

Hey - we have common ground.

Though I'm not convinced that we WON'T be that stupid (or in the stratosphere of that stupid) if our government gains full control of health care in its entirety.  And, I don't necessarily have THE SOLUTION to our health care system which clearly sucks right now.  I just know in my heart that turning it over for the government to control is NOT what I am comfortable doing.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Frankie on April 25, 2018, 05:22:43 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.

It's an example of how Universal Health Care will fall into the hands of the government, and the government will make laws that take away our freedoms. 

You can't guarantee that AT ALL.  If the government didn't control the health care there, you have no idea what the laws would be.  What, you don't think that if the government institutes Universal Health Care here that NO new laws will be created?  You can't be that naive (at least I hope).  There will be laws erected to accompany the new health care, and we don't know what they will be.

And, yes the British government believes the doctors are right in this case.  THAT is the problem.  The government has TOO MUCH input in this case.  And they've been horribly, horribly wrong before...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/ashya-king-cleared-cancer-three-years-parents-abducted-hospital/

Dude Iím just arguing that Britainís dumb and theyíve always been dumb. Weíre not that stupid. Gotta have faith in that at least. Iíve seen so many horrifyingly stupid cases that come out of Britain itís insane.

Hey - we have common ground.

Though I'm not convinced that we WON'T be that stupid (or in the stratosphere of that stupid) if our government gains full control of health care in its entirety.  And, I don't necessarily have THE SOLUTION to our health care system which clearly sucks right now.  I just know in my heart that turning it over for the government to control is NOT what I am comfortable doing.

I mean I never argued against your primary logic. I understand that itís a valid concern to have of course. I just think we as human beings deserve the right to healthcare. I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Good olí Locke.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Robert Neville on April 25, 2018, 06:54:37 pm
Let me weigh in on this as someone who actually works in a state healthcare system right now.

First, let's not whitewash what the child's situation actually is.

ďAlfie looks like a normal baby, but the unanimous opinion of the doctors who have examined him and the scans of his brain is that almost all of his brain has been destroyed.

ďNo one knows why. But that it has happened and is continuing to happen cannot be denied. It means that Alfie cannot breathe, or eat, or drink without sophisticated medical treatment. It also means that there is no hope of his ever getting better.Ē (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/alfie-evans-european-court-human-rights-life-support)

It's simple: when a CT/MRI scan literally shows enormous voids where gray matter is supposed to be, then hoping for recovery from this is little different than believing a torn limb will grow back. Should he still be kept on life support regardless? This is ultimately a question of society's attitudes towards euthanasia more than anything else. I cannot really imagine a circumstance where a Russian state hospital would have turned off the life support, or not accepted the offer (though it's usually Israeli hospitals that tend to take our most severe cases.)

The flip side of that, however, are the thousands of patients we have to keep alive regardless of how slim their chances of recovery are, and how much pain it might cause them. I have seen plenty of elderly (80-90 y.o.) stroke victims linger for 2-6 weeks in a semi-conscious state, typically unable to do anything but groan, until their heart finally gives out (since in such cases, stroke cripples brain's ability to control metabolism, and the body swells with fluid that accumulates in tissues and puts ever greater strain on the heart.) Some do manage to improve after 1 month+ of this, though (at least enough to get transferred elsewhere out of our sight; I am not sure if anyone of those recovered enough to make it back home, or if they lived for much longer afterwards.) Hence, I suppose the system is worth it (not that I am legally allowed to say otherwise), for all the indignity it involves. Most other Western systems, however, trade survival chances for "dignity" to at least some extent when compared to ours. (Belgian one is particularly notorious in Russia for letting doctors decide on euthanasia independent of the patient and/or their family.)

This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

Look, I read three articles on this (your abcnews link, Guardian one I provided and WaPo one), and all of them say that the decision on what to do with a child was made by a doctor, and then corroborated by the courts (i.e. the legal system). Unless you literally think that because child's doctors are technically state employees, and so their decisions would then automatically constitute government decisions by that virtue alone, (which is plainly ridiculous), I don't see the case you are making. It is always the British courts that have been ruling on this. Their health minister, (or his "shadow" counterpart from the opposition, for that matter) seem to have not made any statements on this at all; otherwise, they would certainly have been quoted by the British papers. This further proves that this is outside their remit, and is about the legal system alone. You could say that the legal system is operating within the laws their goverment once made, but again, all the relevant laws appear to be ones about the "dignity of life" questions, and the way British courts then interpret them. I don't really see any evidence that it would have been different with a private hospital: if the doctors there were just as insistent the child was a lost cause, the courts would have made the exact same decisions as well.

However, I can tell you what does appear to be the example of direct state interference: the Italian actions. A military plane with life support on it was sent, and the child got Italian citizenship granted. All nice measures, but one thing appears glaringly absent from either of three articles I read: the opinion of actual Italian doctors (rather than politicians and Catholic activists) on the matter. Call me cynical, but I suspect the doctors over there know themselves that if they were to get the child, they couldn't do anything more but keep him in a vegetative state until the parents lose hope and agree to have him switched off and buried after however many years it takes. It seems like they are simply going with what the remnants of their government (since they are a long way from agreeing on a coalition after last month's elections) want, which looks too much like empty posturing, for domestic and inter-EU politics. The fact that EU's human rights court was asked by the family to intervene and declined as well (even though it would have every reason to) seems to bolster the idea there's no objective reason to think his brain could ever grow back.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Tut on April 25, 2018, 07:01:07 pm
> Live in Britain
> Log on to the Oasis and make a joke comparing DC fans to Nazis
> Police invade home
> They don't need a search warrant, because I own one of the three registered firearms in my city
> "oi chap, you gots a licence for that joke?"
> Don't have the right paperwork, police slap handcuffs on and take me away
> Charged with wrongthink and thought-crimes
> Surveillance cameras placed in my room caught me in the act
> Guilty as charged
> Sentenced to five years of hard labor
> Finally get out on parole, try to settle down and start a family
> Get married, have kids
> Daughter is kidnapped by Pakistani sex traffickers
> Try to save her, but as an ex-con I can't purchase a kitchen knife without a 30-day waiting period
> Police can't intervene because Muslim pedophiles are a protected class
> Go to Speaker's Corner, inform the public
> Arrested for hate speech
> Fifty years in prison

> We have always been at war with Eastasia
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on April 25, 2018, 08:35:03 pm
This is basically in line with the ruling on the Charlie Gard case from last year, where I understand why the doctors are choosing to keep the kid here but think that the parents should have the right to try to move him to Italy if they have the ability to pay and the Italian doctors are willing to take the risk to treat him. Even if they donít choose to move him out there, I would prefer for the parents to be able to choose to provide euthanasia. I donít know if that conflicts with my support of assisted suicide in the US but itís my current stance as of now.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 09:38:54 pm
Let me weigh in on this as someone who actually works in a state healthcare system right now.

First, let's not whitewash what the child's situation actually is.

ďAlfie looks like a normal baby, but the unanimous opinion of the doctors who have examined him and the scans of his brain is that almost all of his brain has been destroyed.

ďNo one knows why. But that it has happened and is continuing to happen cannot be denied. It means that Alfie cannot breathe, or eat, or drink without sophisticated medical treatment. It also means that there is no hope of his ever getting better.Ē (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/alfie-evans-european-court-human-rights-life-support)

It's simple: when a CT/MRI scan literally shows enormous voids where gray matter is supposed to be, then hoping for recovery from this is little different than believing a torn limb will grow back. Should he still be kept on life support regardless? This is ultimately a question of society's attitudes towards euthanasia more than anything else. I cannot really imagine a circumstance where a Russian state hospital would have turned off the life support, or not accepted the offer (though it's usually Israeli hospitals that tend to take our most severe cases.)

The flip side of that, however, are the thousands of patients we have to keep alive regardless of how slim their chances of recovery are, and how much pain it might cause them. I have seen plenty of elderly (80-90 y.o.) stroke victims linger for 2-6 weeks in a semi-conscious state, typically unable to do anything but groan, until their heart finally gives out (since in such cases, stroke cripples brain's ability to control metabolism, and the body swells with fluid that accumulates in tissues and puts ever greater strain on the heart.) Some do manage to improve after 1 month+ of this, though (at least enough to get transferred elsewhere out of our sight; I am not sure if anyone of those recovered enough to make it back home, or if they lived for much longer afterwards.) Hence, I suppose the system is worth it (not that I am legally allowed to say otherwise), for all the indignity it involves. Most other Western systems, however, trade survival chances for "dignity" to at least some extent when compared to ours. (Belgian one is particularly notorious in Russia for letting doctors decide on euthanasia independent of the patient and/or their family.)

This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

Look, I read three articles on this (your abcnews link, Guardian one I provided and WaPo one), and all of them say that the decision on what to do with a child was made by a doctor, and then corroborated by the courts (i.e. the legal system). Unless you literally think that because child's doctors are technically state employees, and so their decisions would then automatically constitute government decisions by that virtue alone, (which is plainly ridiculous), I don't see the case you are making. It is always the British courts that have been ruling on this. Their health minister, (or his "shadow" counterpart from the opposition, for that matter) seem to have not made any statements on this at all; otherwise, they would certainly have been quoted by the British papers. This further proves that this is outside their remit, and is about the legal system alone. You could say that the legal system is operating within the laws their goverment once made, but again, all the relevant laws appear to be ones about the "dignity of life" questions, and the way British courts then interpret them. I don't really see any evidence that it would have been different with a private hospital: if the doctors there were just as insistent the child was a lost cause, the courts would have made the exact same decisions as well.

However, I can tell you what does appear to be the example of direct state interference: the Italian actions. A military plane with life support on it was sent, and the child got Italian citizenship granted. All nice measures, but one thing appears glaringly absent from either of three articles I read: the opinion of actual Italian doctors (rather than politicians and Catholic activists) on the matter. Call me cynical, but I suspect the doctors over there know themselves that if they were to get the child, they couldn't do anything more but keep him in a vegetative state until the parents lose hope and agree to have him switched off and buried after however many years it takes. It seems like they are simply going with what the remnants of their government (since they are a long way from agreeing on a coalition after last month's elections) want, which looks too much like empty posturing, for domestic and inter-EU politics. The fact that EU's human rights court was asked by the family to intervene and declined as well (even though it would have every reason to) seems to bolster the idea there's no objective reason to think his brain could ever grow back.

Here's the problem.  The courts are the ones ruling the parents CANNOT SEEK CARE elsewhere.  THAT is my issue.  The doctors can have their opinions.  The court can see it the same way (though doctors are CONSTANTLY wrong).  But it's insane to say "we agree with the doctors and aren't going to treat you...but oh, by the way, you are not allowed to seek treatment anywhere else or we will arrest you."  That is fucking stupid.  And that's what happens when you have government overreach.  The doctors aren't the ones saying the parents can't seek treatment elsewhere - it's the government saying that.  Having the government make life and death medical decisions like this scares the ever living shit out of me.  I don't trust them controlling our property taxes - I sure as hell will never trust them controlling our health.
Title: Re: Alfie Evans case
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 25, 2018, 09:41:22 pm
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.

No I'm not.  You're making claims that aren't true.  These cases are worlds apart.  One, the parents didn't ask to seek care elsewhere and get denied, that's a MASSIVE difference.  Two, the courts here weren't sending a death sentence to the child, they were actually trying to help the child.  Those are such big differences, they aren't even in the same stratosphere with regards to precedence, and if you tried to argue precedence in legal proceedings, you'd be laughed out of the court room.

And, this absolutely goes back to my uneasy view about universal health care.  Because, when the government takes over something, people tend to lose their rights.  Simple as that.  It's the absolute truth.  That's why I'm a free market person and why I tend to lean heavily conservative on the side of limiting government.  Because, once they get hold of something, again, you're going to lose rights.  If Universal Health Care is established in this country, it absolutely will be run through the government, and we absolutely will lose some freedoms in the process.

Youíre interpreting the law as a moral justification and thatís where youíll find no distinction between the two and itís the sad truth but thatís how it is. The fact that youíre saying that the courts werent arguing for the childís death sentence in the case I pointed out proves to me that emotional moral implication you see from this particular court case with Alfie. The courts in Britain BELIEVE that the doctors are right in this case and give them the rights to the childís life because of this because itís the humane thing to do. The reason these cases are similar is because t deals with the same topic in different ways, the topic of the childís rights vs the parents rights in regards to primary health for the child. In the case of the United States, we donít set the precedence to the degree that Britain does which is why Iím saying that this case has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

My point wasnít that Iím not arguing your logic behind why you feel that the government might screw our freedoms up with universal healthcare. Itís a logical thing to imagine. Iím saying that in this particular case it doesnít fit because thatís not what is part of this discussion for the child. It has no correlation between universal healthcare and what the parents want for the child because it is a different issue. Just because the government controls universal healthcare doesnít mean that it correlates between that and the rights of the child. In the United States if we were to establish universal healthcare thereís no reason to suspect will go this route because there isnít a distinct correlation between the two. I guarantee you if Britain didnít have universal healthcare it would have turned out the exact same way.

It's an example of how Universal Health Care will fall into the hands of the government, and the government will make laws that take away our freedoms. 

You can't guarantee that AT ALL.  If the government didn't control the health care there, you have no idea what the laws would be.  What, you don't think that if the government institutes Universal Health Care here that NO new laws will be created?  You can't be that naive (at least I hope).  There will be laws erected to accompany the new health care, and we don't know what they will be.

And, yes the British government believes the doctors are right in this case.  THAT is the problem.  The government has TOO MUCH input in this case.  And they've been horribly, horribly wrong before...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/ashya-king-cleared-cancer-three-years-parents-abducted-hospital/

Dude Iím just arguing that Britainís dumb and theyíve always been dumb. Weíre not that stupid. Gotta have faith in that at least. Iíve seen so many horrifyingly stupid cases that come out of Britain itís insane.

Hey - we have common ground.

Though I'm not convinced that we WON'T be that stupid (or in the stratosphere of that stupid) if our government gains full control of health care in its entirety.  And, I don't necessarily have THE SOLUTION to our health care system which clearly sucks right now.  I just know in my heart that turning it over for the government to control is NOT what I am comfortable doing.

I mean I never argued against your primary logic. I understand that itís a valid concern to have of course. I just think we as human beings deserve the right to healthcare. I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Good olí Locke.

As long as it's not RUN by the government, I could possibly get on board.  If it is free market with SOME caveats that MUST be included (like no pre-existing disqualifications, etc), then I'm even more on board.  But the minute the entire thing is designed to be built, maintained, and ruled on by our government, I am OUT.