Want single payer and/or socialized medicine? This is what you get. You end up in court fighting the government to get medicine to stay alive after they have deemed you unworthy.
Charlie Gard
- Thread starter Bob the Citronaut
- Start date
He would be covered at 70% after a $6,000 deductible and $800 monthly payments for the family.
Do we know this for certain? He would be subjected to an experimental medical procedure, with no guarantees it would heal this child nor ease any pain he will likely suffer if he continues his life. I don't blame his parents for trying, but I'm not convinced all American insurance companies would cover the experimental medicine.
Yes, our health insurance system truly is the gold standard in the world. All should be envious of the system in the US when it comes to insurance issues. It's perfection. The private market has solved all the issues for $12 a year.
The private market has never been given a chance to even succeed. But cute- keep thinking our woes are due to the evil private market. Meanwhile we can keep passing laws that allow for more government intrusion and watch costs continue to rise.
At least here something as basic as decision making for a child is left with the parent. Christ you left wingers are brainwashed.
Yeap, I'm sure all parents are happy to give up their rights as parents to the government. They know what's best and if they say it's time for your kid to die because treatment is too expensive then you should just toe the line.
A true Utopia is when you have to go to court to save your own infants life because the government has decided they're unworthy of health care.
Oh, and while everyone hails this supposed awesome Medicaid expansion, let's not forget that the Medicare board of trustees said that their trust fund would be insolvent within 10 years....or less.
Medicare is headed for insolvency while Medicaid expansion will soon be bankrupting States.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160622/NEWS/160629973
Yay government medicine!
Medicare is headed for insolvency while Medicaid expansion will soon be bankrupting States.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160622/NEWS/160629973
Yay government medicine!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the citizens of the U.K. allowed to purchase private insurance if they want? The problem is, even if they did have private insurance there is only so much that can be done for that child. All medical evidence points to a life of suffering for the kid for the short life he will live. I feel for the family and they are more than welcome to pay for any experimental medicine with their own money. But if I was a U.K. citizen I wouldn't want my tax dollars going towards a hopeless case. If he was born in America to a family with no/shitty insurance would you be making this much noise then? He wouldn't be any better off. Or would you want American tax dollars being put to waste?
Do you not see what you just wrote? You just advocated for the rationing of care on the basis of total government run health care.
Aside from this case, there are TONS of medical cases where you could say "waste of taxpayer money!". Long term mild pain in the foot that could be solved with surgery? Too bad, we've got bigger priorities the taxpayers have to look out for!
Medical decisions should be entirely up to a person or parents. If they want to pay out of pocket for whatever treatment then damn the government to hell that tries to take away that choice from the parents.
people should really look the the lasik model. its not really covered by insurance as it is an elective procedure. just 10 years ago, it could cost $2000 and eye. Now you can get it done for as low as $500 an eye.
Id say the system can work if given the proper chance. I think we need to possibly pull government programs back out and let the market correct itself.
It remains insane that parents had to fight a government for the basic right to do what they feel is right for their child. It should scare everyone that this is possible.
Give me a break. Insurance companies have no authority to deny a parent to make a choice for what care their kid needs.
So sure- whine about insurance companies. In the U.K. They not only must fight with the government for care, but surrender authority to them.
The family raised over $1.6 Million for care for their child yet the UK didn't allow them to spend one dime of that on their child.
One day, there might be a USA Govt that could consider almost ANY procedure a hopeless case ("ah, your knee replacement won't ever be as good as your knee was back when you were 17 yrs old so we won't approve") which is actually pretty funny and sad to hear people cheering for outcomes like this.
Quit attempting to compare the medical issues this child has with something as trivial as a knee replacement. That's a bullshit argument.
And I didn't know they raised that money. As long as THEY could pay for it, then they should have been able to do what they wanted.
That difference is kind of a big deal, and people dont seem to realize it. Here at least you can try to finance that treatment another way...
I agree, but I think the issue was more that the doctors wouldn't try the experimental therapy because the disease was too far along and it wouldn't do any good.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40554462
But for many, that other way simply does not exist, and with certain exceptions for emergency care, some doctors won't treat if they won't get paid.
Last edited:
They don't even know if the treatment was going to help: "There have not yet been any trials in mice to see if it would work in Charlie's condition, which is caused by a mutation of a gene called RRM2B."
In any case, the hospital still applied for "ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy on Charlie."
I think this could be a case of researchers seeing a case where they could do a human test vs doctors trying to do what was best for Charlie. Since the parents had collected the money, I don't think it was a case of "not with my taxes"
You're suggesting insurance companies do not deny coverage? Please support this claim.
This was already explained to you. They can deny PAYING for portions of a procedure of treatment but they cannot deny the actual procedure. That is your choice.
Unlike this story where the U.K. Government was literally making decisions instead of the parents. They removed the right to of the parents to make the decision they want for their own child.
Right. As i said, for some, the refusal to pay by the insurance company ends up being a refusal to perform for the practice, forcing the patient either to forgo medical care or try to find a provider who will do it on a charity basis.
It's a shitty choice at best, and options may not be available, making it no choice at all.
Youd make a great Marxist. Why give people choice when things may cost a lot? Simply return decision making to the government! You'll have no say, but we will promise some "free" shit!
I'm shocked you didn't know. Oh wait, I'm not because that's a simple basic fact that CNN, MSNBC, NYT and others didn't want to mention much at all.
Similar threads
