+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112785
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: Alfie Evans case  (Read 148 times)

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Alfie Evans case
« 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. 

Social Buttons


Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #1 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #2 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #3 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #4 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #5 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #6 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #7 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?

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #8 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #9 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #10 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #11 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #12 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #13 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #14 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #15 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #16 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.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #17 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.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #18 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/

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« Reply #19 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.

 

+- Hot Threads

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Crohn's Boy
November 11, 2018, 05:51:35 pm

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Robert Neville
November 10, 2018, 12:40:44 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Tho Master Fie
November 05, 2018, 10:39:03 am

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
October 14, 2018, 05:26:22 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 29, 2018, 09:36:30 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm