Here is a quite liberal source to satisfy those who might whine about the DailyMail, Fox or Breitbart.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... awn-friday

Despite the parents raising OVER A MILLION in cash to take the baby to the United States for an experimental treatment, the conceited Brits have decided it's not worth even allowing it and have also decided its time to take the baby off of life support against the parents wishes. Also, they will not even let the parents take their kid home before the state pulls the plug.

This situation also nearly occurred in Canada with a similar baby that was dying.

Let this be a lesson to those who peddle the nonsense of a single payer healthcare system. Putting the government in charge of who lives and who dies is EVIL.
Need an understanding? Go down to the DMV and ask yourself if you want those people deciding your life/death.

With Obamacare we had a watered-down version of this for Medicare/Medicaid. It was called the Independent Payment Advisory Board and it was their job to keep those programs solvent by rationing care while claiming that they weren't rationing care. Some of the decisions they have already made have been age limits for certain surgeries, as well as limits on who can get certain expensive medications. This was the "death panel" that the libs mocked Sarah Palin for and its still functioning today.

Overseas and in Canada, the single payer systems in Canada, Australia, Britain, France and other places have been notorious for sentencing cancer patients and people with treatable diseases to death or miserable lifestyles.

Remember this the next time some rabid Bernie Bro or Warren Sis tries screaming in your face how great SP is, and ask them how many babies have to die for their beliefs.

With a private system maybe you get denied, but if you can raise the money no one will refuse you. In government care where they have a monopoly on hospitals, ORs and doctors, they don't care about your money, if a government bureaucrat decides its not worth it to save you then you're just dead. I don't know about you but I'd rather have a system that would at least let me sell everything I own or raise money to save my family members rather than watching the state sentence them to death or even carry out the execution because it's more "humane" that way...

From a friend:

My spouse just had back surgery (herniated disk) on my company health insurance.
It took two weeks for the doctors to request a CAT scan (my family doctor was
not available) and she had the operation that same day after the image review.
A friend of hers in Canada (socialized health care) had the same problem. He was
on pain killers for a year because they wouldn’t do a scan or surgery. On many days
he could not walk so he went on disability. Finally, after hearing my spouse’s story,
he paid out of pocket for the surgery and now he’s fine. I heard similar stories from
the Swedes I worked with. Socialized health care is public theft because you get
no root cause corrective action. That is by design. If you want to be healthy again,
you pay for it yourself. The insurance companies get big money from the government
to just push pills. And those who are financially able get health care anyway. The
remaining are SOL. Win-win for the government. They get your money and the
low life die early thinking they are getting free health care. The government (both
Demos and RINOs) want socialized heath care. They do not want commercial
market health care where the public has a choice with their own money. It’s
the government’s money. We are allowed just to keep a subsistence portion of it.

He was lucky the Canadian government allowed him to pay out of pocket and seek the treatment. They could have decided it was more "humane" just to put him down.

CORRECT. You are not the decider anymore.

Need an understanding? Go down to the DMV and ask yourself if you want those people deciding your life/death.


Perfect analogy right there!

The UK government has given the parents until Wednesday to "prove" that their baby should be allowed to live, despite them raising the funds themselves.

Unbelievable. Gives whole new meaning to the term Euro-peon.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/10 ... alive.html


So what's risk? The UK loses NOTHING by letting these parents pay to send their kid to America and then pay for an experimental treatment here. The only actual things the UK have to lose are... face and pride.

Think about that, they are so sure in their giving the authority of life and death to the State that to avoid any questioning of it they would sentence a baby to death.

LOOK AT THIS HORSE-SHIT!


-How much "benefit"....
-A British judge overruled cutting edge physicians in the US and Italy who have pioneered a new experimental treatment


Death's door to bike riding.... and yet the UK government has "judges" that "know what's best."

Ultimately, it comes down to who should make the decision, the parents or the state?

I say the parents have an overwhelming interest in the concern of the child compared to the state.


The state should not be able to deny the parents to choose if they can afford it.

One of the tenants of a free society. Will we still have it in the future?


That said, the parents are making the wrong decision after the articles I read about the baby. There is just not a complete person there, and the result of the rare condition is always fatal, almost immediately.


It is sad all the way around.

Imagine if Heller Keller had been euthanized as a baby. That's fairly similar to this situation here. The extent of brain damage is unknown.

Also, if you read the article you can see that the at the end the parents say that if the treatment fails they will agree to let their baby go.

What is lost by trying?

The Premier of Newfoundland flew to Florida for heart surgery and paid cash.

"This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/po ... le4311853/

here is another quote from him:
"I have the utmost confidence in our health-care system, I certainly do," the 60-year-old said, perched on a leather chair in his condominium in Sarasota, Fla. "It's a bum rap for someone to turn around and say, 'Oh, Williams does not have confidence in his own health-care system because he has to leave the province.' "

It really seems that this comes down to the court having the power to step in when no one has asked them to... No insurance company here would pay for the treatment either, and benefits allowing for continued life support would be cut off eventually as well, so blaming it on single payer system seems incorrect (No they are not the be all end all, but neither is our current system, or any really where non-medically trained monkeys rubber stamp "denied" on everything to make sure a company profits). Unless one parent disagrees with the other and files suit, the courts should have no cause to get in the mix and the parents should be able to spend whatever they want, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Their money, their family, their choice and ultimately their conscience to live with.

That's crazy. Why did he leave and go to the USA for it if he had confidence in Canada's system?


The parents raised almost $2 million dollars in private fund raising and there are US hospitals volunteering to help shoulder the costs if they run over that. That takes care of the $ angle.

It's entirely the fault of Single Payer. Other SP systems have done or attempted similar things to this before, such as this situation:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canad ... nst-parent

here are some myths about Canadian health care. Looks like you've nailed a few. I live near Canada and have many friends there. I would take their healthcare in a heartbeat. Thanks for the misinformation though.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-my ... are-system

Um, that's not how facts work.

You can try and argue that these cases are outliers or are not overly representative of the system at large due to statistical analysis, but these specific cases absolutely happened.

You cannot deny that they happened or call them misinformation unless you have links or evidence proving them to be hoaxes.

The fact that these cases are possible at all means that even if they are rare the horrible possibility that the government can sentence an innocent civilian to die even when they raise private funds for their own care should be a reason to reject any government-run health care system. I wonder how opponents of government death penalty policy can square their beliefs given how often they're batched with lib pie in the sky ideas like Single Payer.

It's entirely the fault of Single Payer. Other SP systems have done or attempted similar things to this before, such as this situation:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canad ... nst-parent

Your point above is accurate only in the sense that the government is the SP and the one saying they can't take the child elsewhere. No would would bat an eye if it were Group Health saying they wouldn't pay, but Uncle Sam wouldn't block the family.
It is not their healthcare system that is saying they cannot take their child elsewhere due to quality of life, it is their courts/lawmakers. Granted, it's all the same government, but to me this is an issue of having too much say in the families affairs, not an issue of how payment is arranged, because as I said, no HMO here would pay for experimental treatment either, the courts just wouldnt step in until petitioned to do so, and it wouldn't be in the news because the folks would have just raised the money and entered the procedure. It's a violation of the families rights to chose for their child, not a big shock that no insurance wants to pay for it.