USA Saves baby sentenced to death by UK health care. LIVE WITH DIGNITY!

[The ScorpioN]

If you deny people preventative care, then they will wait until a problem becomes so big that it requires expensive surgeries, aggressive therapies, etc.

It would actually be cheaper in the long run if preventative care was made accessible to everyone.

Most of preventative care is at the tip of your fingertips for free.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Is medical care a right? If not, why is there hysteria over a decision affirming that it isn't?

If the market says "no care" that's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. If the state says "no care" that's evil personified.

 

[nostradumbass]

That's not what happened though. I love how all the pertinent information is collated in 3 pages for you to peruse and check, yet even when lead to the water you shit in rather than drink. Remarkable, stunning wilful ignorance.

But due to the innovation and ingenuity of the United States, the necessary surgery was not only available, but had a 100% success rate at the Boston Children's Hospital.
The NHS, however, initially refused to pay for the roughly $260,000 parents Lydia and Tim Cameron needed to fund the trip and procedure required to save their baby.

Why would the UK's perfect healthcare system have to pony up to send the kid to another country for surgery?

 

[xcvbn]

If the market says "no care" that's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. If the state says "no care" that's evil personified.

lol

 

[WhitebeltXL]

How can this be I’ve been told that healthcare in USA sucks and a broken system ....

I think everyone admits the US system is the best for innovation and discovery of new treatments, as well as supplying top of the line care.

I think the broken comments are more about access to affordable care those less well off, not quality of care.

 

[The Merchant]

Why would the UK's perfect healthcare system have to pony up to send the kid to another country for surgery?

They didn't have the expertise.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

As long as it wasn't on Uncle Sam's dime it is pure MAGA.

as long as its the UK government paying for its citizens healthcare its socialism

no MAGA involved

 

[nostradumbass]

That's not what happened though. I love how all the pertinent information is collated in 3 pages for you to peruse and check, yet even when lead to the water you shit in rather than drink. Remarkable, stunning wilful ignorance.

But due to the innovation and ingenuity of the United States, the necessary surgery was not only available, but had a 100% success rate at the Boston Children's Hospital.
The NHS, however, initially refused to pay for the roughly $260,000 parents Lydia and Tim Cameron needed to fund the trip and procedure required to save their baby.

Why would the UK's perfect healthcare system have to pony up to send the kid to another country for surgery?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

No, the bulk was raised through charity and the UK gov't paid the balance after getting pressured for sentencing a baby to death. What if the US had the same system and we also just didn't have a doctor who could perform the surgery? Sorry, kid, you just have to die.

na mate the Government paid for the treatment, read the article

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Why would the UK's perfect healthcare system have to pony up to send the kid to another country for surgery?

because your experimental treatments arent legal in the UK or that doctor would be registered to practice that procedure here

 

[ultramanhyata]

Most of preventative care is at the tip of your fingertips for free.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Why would the UK's perfect healthcare system have to pony up to send the kid to another country for surgery?

Because we lack skills for extremely rare treatments. The NHS can't set aside much needed funds for one in a million cases like this. It's one of the downsides of a Socialised system, but definitely worth it when considering the amount of care provided to the population at large for what is basically free for most (most of the population pay far less in National Insurance than they receive in care)

 

[nostradumbass]

na mate the Government paid for the treatment, read the article

It said they raised $170,000 and were still short, so if that means the gov't paid the whole thing and they returned that money, then I retract what I said.

 

[nostradumbass]

Because we lack skills for extremely rare treatments. The NHS can't set aside much needed funds for one in a million cases like this. It's one of the downsides of a Socialised system, but definitely worth it when considering the amount of care provided to the population at large for what is basically free for most (most of the population pay far less in National Insurance than they receive in care)

Well that's kind of the debate, isn't it? Would you rather sacrifice your own healthcare quality for higher taxes, fewer doctors to cover more people? "Free for most" just means a stranger is paying for it. It's not free for me, who has to pay for everyone else's too while the quality of mine slips.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Well that's kind of the debate, isn't it? Would you rather sacrifice your own healthcare quality for higher taxes, fewer doctors to cover more people? "Free for most" just means a stranger is paying for it. It's not free for me, who has to pay for everyone else's too while the quality of mine slips.

This is true. I've paid in far more to the NHS than I'll likely ever use, but knowing that my contributions will go to help relatives of mine who aren't as well off leads me to believe it's worth it, and statistics show that the majority of Britons agree.

I can always go private if I need further or more expertised care, not many have that luxury and rely on the services NHS provides.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Yeah, National Review has really put those know nothings at the World Health Organization in their place with this propaganda piece.

Ok. Here's another source. How many do you want?

The infant mortality rate is defined as the number of deaths of children under one year of age, expressed per 1 000 live births. ---->Some of the international variation in infant mortality rates is due to variations among countries in registering practices for premature infants. <------The United States and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500g, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality. In Europe, several countries apply a minimum gestational age of 22 weeks (or a birth weight threshold of 500g) for babies to be registered as live births. This indicator is measured in terms of deaths per 1 000 live births.

https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/infant-mortality-rates.htm

 

[nostradumbass]

This is true. I've paid in far more to the NHS than I'll likely ever use, but knowing that my contributions will go to help relatives of mine who aren't as well off leads me to believe it's worth it, and statistics show that the majority of Britons agree.

I can always go private if I need further or more expertised care, not many have that luxury and rely on the services NHS provides.

I mean, that really is the whole debate. You can't have universality and quality. Luckily, so far, I've been sick like once my entire adult life and spent about 200 bucks going to the dr and getting antibiotics. I could have spent like an extra $50k over the last 12 years to get my 200 dollar coverage or just put it away on the off-chance I'll need it at some point. By definition, you have to have people pay for more than they take to cover people who take out more than they put in. I'm pretty healthy and make decent money, so I'm not gonna do that. People keep talking like this money is just going to pop up from thin air or anybody who's made good choices and has a decent job is just an endless bag of loot we can shake down.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

This, but also fuck TS for trying to pretend that people in the US aren't dying from being denied coverage.

The story here is that wealth decides life and death.

The story shows the generosity of people when you are really in need. Let people solve this rather then the government

 

[Squarechoke]

The abortion rate is twice that, so stop acting like you give a fuck. The difference between the UK and US is 1.9/1,000, and those stats aren't even compiled in the same way for both countries, which more than makes up the difference.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/

It's a reasonable objection but no corrected statistics are available so now the burden of evidence is upon you to prove your statement that it "more than makes up the difference".

I would like to think that you have a source to support your claim but I have my doubts given that we also have statistics for deaths of children under 5 years old, which show a pretty similar spread to the posted infant mortality chart despite that there are less problematic definitions involved. It does of course include all sorts of deaths though so it's not exactly the same as the previous statistic, but it's still used in similar contexts.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

I mean, that really is the whole debate. You can't have universality and quality. Luckily, so far, I've been sick like once my entire adult life and spent about 200 bucks going to the dr and getting antibiotics. I could have spent like an extra $50k over the last 12 years to get my 200 dollar coverage or just put it away on the off-chance I'll need it at some point. By definition, you have to have people pay for more than they take to cover people who take out more than they put in. I'm pretty healthy and make decent money, so I'm not gonna do that. People keep talking like this money is just going to pop up from thin air or anybody who's made good choices and has a decent job is just an endless bag of loot we can shake down.

I agree that universal care diminishes quality, that's just a fact of life. The NHS would have to be funded completely beyond what is reasonable to reach certain a quality like this child received. But I believe you can strike a fine balance, between providing essential services and frontline care for free, whilst having the quality and expertise that comes with a privatised service for more costly procedures and treatments, which would probably look a little like what the dentistry service in the UK looks like. A privatised service that offers basic treatment cheaper on the NHS.

Right now in the UK, we absolutely have gone away from quality in the name of cost cutting and saving, and patients are suffering for it, which is why we are seeing a move towards privatisation of certain sectors of the NHS, whether this will improve overall care though remains to be seen.