Charlie Gard

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Great article? You must be joking. Sky news at its best.

 

Great article. Sums up how it played out this side of the pond accurately. That summed up how it has played out on this side of the pond, with regard to press coverage.

 

It was more aimed at the political football that this lad has been used as. At the risk of derailing the thread, health care is a pretty big debate, over here, at the moment. A lot of Americans are looking to Europe's socialised medicine as an answer to the skyrocketing premiums. Many of the GOP politicians are using Charlie's plight to show that they're looking to the US for advantages they don't have in Europe, which means he's being used as a propaganda exercise.

 

Hope that clarifies.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ChrisJones

[scothunter 12,609]

Chris what happens if you say break a leg in the states and you have no health insurance or if you cut yourself and need stitches. Ive read people stitch themselfs at home. Is that true?

[neems 2,406]

I'd say the wishes of the parents should take precedent over the wishes of the state,i'm also dubious as to the precedent set in court here,some people have the opposite opinion which is fine.

it's down to your own values etc.

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Chris what happens if you say break a leg in the states and you have no health insurance or if you cut yourself and need stitches. Ive read people stitch themselfs at home. Is that true?

 

If you go to the hospital with no insurance they'll treat you and bill you for it. That can be bankrupting depending on the injury. My son had 12 stitches in his arm, we didn't have insurance at the time and the doc sewed him up for $20. I've stitched myself with the dog's veterinary staple gun, but I was over 300 miles from the hospital at the time!

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

 

I agree, mate, but I think I didn't make myself clear in the earlier post. I don't really have an opinion on the lad because I don't know a great deal about the case. All I've seen, over here, is the religious right and pro-lifers using the case as a political football against socialized medicine. The Sky news article summed up how it's been 'sold' over in the US very well.

[scothunter 12,609]

So if you need a bypass and no insurance its basically a death sentence.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

So if you need a bypass and no insurance its basically a death sentence.

 

Not necessarily because you'd be treated and then pay the bill in instalments. Most would then file for bankruptcy. I believe Charlie's support team had raised the funding for the treatment?

[neems 2,406]

 

 

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

 

I agree, mate, but I think I didn't make myself clear in the earlier post. I don't really have an opinion on the lad because I don't know a great deal about the case. All I've seen, over here, is the religious right and pro-lifers using the case as a political football against socialized medicine. The Sky news article summed up how it's been 'sold' over in the US very well.

 

 

I meant generally,it seems to be more doubling down from the supporters of the NHS' decision over here,but it doesn't matter what side they're on.

 

It's beneath classless.

[neil82 1,075]

I'd say the wishes of the parents should take precedent over the wishes of the state,i'm also dubious as to the precedent set in court here,some people have the opposite opinion which is fine.

it's down to your own values etc.

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

no precedent was set by this case, all has been done before, the only thing different here is the amount of publicity generated by the press and the amount of howling from the "life at al costs" brigade, one thing they forget is this was never about cost, it was all about what was best for the child, don`t read the papers about this, look for the court papers, they are about facts related to the case, not headlines

[sandymere 8,263]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/it-was-our-agonising-job-as-charlie-gard-care-team-to-say-enough?CMP=fb_gu

[Greengrass 201]

 

Chris what happens if you say break a leg in the states and you have no health insurance or if you cut yourself and need stitches. Ive read people stitch themselfs at home. Is that true?

 

If you go to the hospital with no insurance they'll treat you and bill you for it. That can be bankrupting depending on the injury. My son had 12 stitches in his arm, we didn't have insurance at the time and the doc sewed him up for $20. I've stitched myself with the dog's veterinary staple gun, but I was over 300 miles from the hospital at the time!

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

 

I agree, mate, but I think I didn't make myself clear in the earlier post. I don't really have an opinion on the lad because I don't know a great deal about the case. All I've seen, over here, is the religious right and pro-lifers using the case as a political football against socialized medicine. The Sky news article summed up how it's been 'sold' over in the US very well.

I ad a mate living in L. A who broke his arm having a kick about at football, he did,nt even think about going to a hospital, got a flight booked back home to London, saw some family and friends and flew back a few days later.

[Greengrass 201]

 

I'd say the wishes of the parents should take precedent over the wishes of the state,i'm also dubious as to the precedent set in court here,some people have the opposite opinion which is fine.

it's down to your own values etc.

 

But I wish people both sides would just stop using this lad as their argument and let him rest in piece,he never had an opinion on this and there was never going to be a happy outcome.

 

no precedent was set by this case, all has been done before, the only thing different here is the amount of publicity generated by the press and the amount of howling from the "life at al costs" brigade, one thing they forget is this was never about cost, it was all about what was best for the child, don`t read the papers about this, look for the court papers, they are about facts related to the case, not headlines

Exactly Neil, not what,s best for the parents it should have always been what was good for the child.