Funny, trying to turn it around after using the method of insult when you have no answer. That is the leftist way, attack the messenger. What reason does the High Court have jurisdiction over Charlie? He has not committed a crime, so that is not the reason for personal jurisdiction over him. He is being treated as a ward of the state despite the fact that he has two parents who have not been declared incompetent. So how is it that a court can decide the fate of a child or any other person on whether they should live or not? The power in this case is given due to a universal health care system. Once an individual has been admitted into the hospital, they no longer have say over any decision concerning their welfare. If you do not see anything wrong with that, good luck when the doctors decide to drill a hole into your skull.
the insurance companies are the bad guys here right my understanding is a bunch of people in the 80s and 90s commited a ******** load of fraud and they didnt really do anything about it until after the fact. now.. they treat everyone as if they are potentially committing fraud to start with. secondly, there is the huge dog eat dog corporate insurance industry and everyone is trying to compete with each other, best way to stay in the game is to pay out as little as possible, that goes for settlements but also primary care on injured workers. So its better to distort a weakness u can find in a injured persons worker and throw their claim into the trash. This is what the biggest guys do and so the smaller maybe more ethical insurance companies cant afford to stay in business, so they just get swallowed up by the big dogs. An interesting thing is that during the 2010 to 2016 period, my insurance for being an injured worker was bought out by a bigger company twice by a bigger conglomerate and each time, it became harder to get the care i was receiving before. And i was not getting meds every month, I was just getting a cortisone shot put in my tailbone 3-4 times a year...
I am noticing a left vs right political belief debate here... I dont really know enough about either one to really have a point of view, Does any one here think that regardless of idealogy, we would have similar problems no matter our system of government because of the sole fact that people tend to be pretty shitty when no one is looking and if those people have power, they have a greater propensity to be extra shitty. Regardless of a capitalistic government or a communist one, power and money tends to end up in a small set of hands and they become oligarch in nature. They also tend to play by a different set of rules. I watched this really good documentary that may have been by the BBC, and it was talking about when Putin took power.. how it was revealed that during the 80s of the soviet union, that a huge amount of money that should have been going to keeping the system alive was in fact hoarded by the oligarchs and that a lot of it was taken out of the country with no trace to where it went. Makes you wonder about what is really going on.
Has any one seen Adam Curtis documentaries? he is pretty fantastic. he is pretty unbiased... his latest one called hyper normalization is about American domestic and foreign policy as well as Syrias from the early 80s up until now and how the two came to clash. its really a fantastic watch if you can have a open mind. I was amazed to know that NYC was in debt so bad that the banks basically took full control of the city back in the 80s. Adam does a good job at unveiling things that are seldom spoke about. He also uses a lot of killer music in a very settle way, he uses Nine inch nails in an amazing way to create mood and atmosphere that compliments the docs and does not create artificial narratives with it like Michael moore does. dont let the photo of Trump fool you, it is not a hit piece and this is not the cover for the doc, its a reupload and someone chose that photo as the lead.
This is an absolute must watch for anyone interest in politics, it is a lot easier to get into and a lot more relevant to our every day life
The first thing you said to me was that I was a communist. I didn't realise it was meant as a compliment. Are the doctors and the Courts acting against the express wishes of the parent? YES Does the UK have a universal health care system? YES Are the courts and doctors acting in the perceived best interests of the patient? YES Who is in the best position to determine what is in the best interest of the patient? Doctors or parents? DOCTORS If doctors agree that the parents are not acting in the best interests of the patient then should the Courts act? ABSOLUTELY Could this exact same scenario play out in a country with a fully privatised health care system? OF COURSE Could this happen in a country without a legal system? NO Is it true in countries with universal health care systems "Once an individual has been admitted into the hospital, they no longer have say over any decision concerning their welfare" LOL Is euthanasia legal in some countries with UHC? YES What about the US? Illegal throughout most of the US. From Mr Justice Francis summary: 'In our judgment, the intellectual milestones for the judge in a case such as the present are, therefore, simple, although the ultimate decision will frequently be extremely difficult. The judge must decide what is in the child's best interests. In making that decision, the welfare of the child is paramount, and the judge must look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child. There is a strong presumption in favour of a course of action which will prolong life, but that presumption is not irrebuttable. The term "best interests" encompasses medical, emotional, and all other welfare issues.' "Charlie's parents have, sadly but bravely, acknowledged and accepted that the quality of life that Charlie has at present is not worth sustaining, for he can only breathe through a ventilator and, although they believe that he has a sleep/wake cycle, and can recognise them and react to them when they are close, they realise that he cannot go on as he is, lying in bed, unable to move, fed through a tube, breathing through a machine. In my full Judgment I shall set out more details of his full medical condition. "the doctor in the USA said the following: 'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.' "However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively." My words---> Will doctors in for profit private systems perform unnecessary procedures "any attempt at therapy would be futile" if it makes them money. YES because profits ($1.7m in this case) come before patient welfare.
Have you not declared yourself to be one? Considering how much you espouse communism, you sure act as if you are.
Many doctors are not saints, whether working for profit or not. How many doctors in a universal health care system do not give a damn. How many administrators in such systems look to cut costs at human life. The best interest in the welfare of the child is to allow hope. This court decision is not even close.
In case you missed it: The doctor in the US offering the operation for $1.7m said the following: "any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely." Calling that "hope" is dishonest on your part.
The Soviet Union was a socialistic democracy. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one too. Also the People's Republic of China is a socialistic democracy. Basically democratic socialist is a synonym for communism.
To edify you on what doctors are willing to do ... Researchers at the Vatican children's hospital implored Charlie's doctors to reconsider allowing an experimental treatment to be used, citing "new information". Clinicians from the Bambino Gesu paediatric hospital's neurosciences department said tests in mice and patients with a similar, but not the same, genetic condition had shown "dramatic clinical improvements".
To really dumb down the difference between right and left I would explain it like so: Whether or not you think that people default towards being shitty (I personally don't) is not important. What we can broadly say though is that people generally want for themselves what they perceive is in their best interests. Although that gets a bit problematic too because people aren't always rational and if we all wanted to remain in permanent bliss we'd be coke addicts and so on. However if we assume that we can assign goals: The right thinks in the following way: If as individual agents we all pursue what we want, then that will incentivise each of us to produce something of value according to our particular skill set which we can then exchange with someone else who is producing something that we don't have that we need. Everything of need will be produced by someone because if something is lacking the demand for it will reward someone who will eagerly make it. This is called the "invisible hand" of the market or "laissez faire". In such a system regulations are like gum in the gears, they mess things up and create inefficient outcomes. Also it doesn't matter how evil and selfish people are, things will work out fine because when you act individually in your best interests as above things will magically produce the optimal results possible for the most number of people in society. The left believe that markets don't work best when unregulated and that they can be tweaked and improved upon. They don't believe for instance that markets always accurately price things like wages (see Marx's Labour theory of value) or money (note the number of severity and frequency of financial crashes pre 1930). They don't believe that markets alone can employ, provide medical care, educate, police, protect property and provide infrastructure for the most people. Therefore there is some role for the state. In relations to abuses of power i would agree with you that those who wield the most power are often those who are most likely to abuse that power. atm its large corporations who have that power and are manipulating our political processes to leech the maximum wealth out of the globe's labour and capital resources. The right and left agree that the best way to combat this corruption is to remove corporate parasites from the government teat. In the last election cycle there was only one major candidate who realistically would have attempted to do that. Government abuses need to be kept in check by checks and balances: three branches of government, an effective Constitution, a free and fair press. Unfortunately large corporations have destroyed the notion of representative government and the press is all but an extension of corporate will.
Replace "large corporations" with large governments and you will be more historically accurate. Also, we are living in the freest era in terms of press thanks to the internet. Enjoy it.
When Romney called Russia an adversary, Dems mocked him as stuck in the 80s. When Trump seeks cooperation with Russia, they call him a tool of an adversary. From a Facebook friend.
Nothing as usual. When did it become a crime to talk to anyone Russian? How did Russia become the enemy when it was not too long ago that Obama told Romney that the 1980s are calling and are asking for their foreign policy back. I am tired of repeated rhetoric that Russia interfered with the elections without any reference as to what they actually did.