Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Klein]

The problem is, general principals are always applied to individual cases. It is how we evaluate general principals.

There's a legal expression.  "Hard cases make bad law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

The question is not this particular child.  It may have made sense for everyone including the parents to stop exceptional medical procedures because of this child's terminal condition.  But it misses the issue for most people.  Do we want government or family to decide when to pull the plug?  Do we want government or family to decide when a person has lost "quality" living experience?  Do we want to take general medical care out of the hands of parents to give to government officials who don't have a personal stake in the decision?  That's what these laws lead too.  It's a slippery slope when you start granting bureaucrats the right to draw lines according to their moral and personal standards.  It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting an unborn child.  Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this.  Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?

[faberryman]

It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting as unborn child.  Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this.  Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?

So I take it then that you are pro-choice.

[Alan Klein]

So I take it then that you are pro-choice.

No.  Society should not be in the business of killing.  It cheapens human life.  It leads to disrespect of people so we do the things that leads to government deciding how sick children are treated rather than parents; where government kills children by rule and law.  Nothing is sacred any more.  We disrespect God and man. 

[JoeKitchen]

I am not familiar with that aspect of Fox News. When I turn on Fox News morning or evening, I just hear the talking heads. Fox and friends in the morning, Hannity et al in the evening. Perhaps I listen at the wrong times.

Is what you described also the case with CNN, MSNBC, etc. where at certain times of the day they are slightly left center but present both sides of most issues in a more balanced view, or are they all left all the time?

CNN went from a fairly neutral news source to being very biased, especially with Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo.  Back when the Jessie Smollett case finally came crumbling down, Don Lemon admitted that he was a friend of Jessie, made it obvious he was still supporting him and then gave advise on air about how Jessie should handle this.  Mind you this was after it was clear as day that the whole story was fabricated. 

That really did it for me.  No way could a friend be fair on the reporting.  The fact that CNN thought it was appropriate to allow Lemon to report on the subject, especially in this manner, pretty much secured it for me. 

There have been plenty of other things as well, but this was the icing on the cake. 

I just can not look at CNN as being anything else then a biased news source any more. 

Chris Cillizza and Zakaria are the only ones at CNN I give any real credence to, and always like how well thought out their opinions are.  I also respect Chris Matthews because he goes after anyone, including fellow liberals.  You dont get a free pass on his show, unlike so many other liberal and conservative hosts give to those in their corresponding parties. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... what this case has to do with the NHS and how it would have come out differently had the child been treated at a private hospital...

I think we will agree on this one. The balance between courts/system/government/state and family transcends particular medical/insurance system.

In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.

Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.

As I said, it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights.

By the same token, people taking principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.

[faberryman]

In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.

Actually there was nothing quick about it. It took seven years to resolve. Someone had to resolve the issue as between the parents and the husband, so naturally the courts became involved. It is how our system works.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Actually there was nothing quick about it. It took seven years to resolve.

There you go, being annoyingly pedantic again. I didn’t say it was quickly resolved.i said it quickly escalated from a family disagreement to court and state involvement. In any case, quickly or not, it isn’t relevant for the issue.

[faberryman]

There you go, being annoyingly pedantic again. I didn’t say it was quickly resolved.i said it quickly escalated from a family disagreement to court and state involvement. In any case, quickly or not, it isn’t relevant for the issue.

It did not quickly escalate. It was eight years after she was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state before the first lawsuit was brought. It took another seven years to finally adjudicate, so fifteen years from start to finish.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, for f*ck’s sake, your pedantry is not relevant for the subject under discussion.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I agree that Trump is often wrong in his use of adjectives, yes even personal insults.  I wish he would stop.  However, the press should rise above it and not be pulled into lowering itself to similar banter because of their leanings.  Their position is to remain objective in their reportage.   Once they start calling everything he does "fascist", "unconstitutional", etc., they have entered the political arena and their news is no longer news.  They're becoming a political opponent.

I do not believe that the reporters of the New York Times or Washington Post have ever used those terms.   They have done a lot of fact checking and pointed out many examples of untruths.

[Alan Goldhammer]

You're still just describing insurance with a  large excess. Your organisation determines how much risk it is prepared to bear and insures above that risk. When I insure my house contents, I decide how much risk I want to bear and inform my insurers, who then adjust my premium accordingly.

Jeremy

Self insurance is different as there is not an underwriting profit involved.   In your example the insurer makes a profit on your premium.  In our case we eliminate that profit along with some over head.   We design a plan that does not turn a profit but maintains a reserve to assure a break even point.  It is just a different approach,

[Alan Klein]

I think we will agree on this one. The balance between courts/system/government/state and family transcends particular medical/insurance system.

In the US, we had the Terry Schiavo case, a similar right-to-life case, though this time it was the husband of a persistently-vegetative state wife and her parents on the opposing sides. However, it quickly escalated to courts and government directly, including highest-level politicians and then-POTUS.

Both cases are not clear-cut right-or-wrong cases, but deeply traumatic, emotional, damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t situations.

As I said, it is matter of balance between courts and family. Neither should have automatic and exclusive rights.

By the same token, people taking principal position one way or another should not be labeled ignorant either.

The Schiavo Case as you stated was between two private parties, family members who sued each other.  The government never decided on what health care Terry Schiavo would get.  They only decided which of the private family members were her legal guardian.  The family member would make the decision.    In the British case, however, the government was the party to the lawsuit.  They in fact made the decision what medical care the child would get.  The family member had to sue the government, and of course lost.


This is what you get with socialized medicine and socialism in general.  By turning responsibility over to the government to take care of you, you forfeit your power and control.  You become like the subjects in 1984, wards of the state with no power and no freedom to decide.  The state now has authority over you.  So the issue with the British case is not what medical care the child should get.  But who shall make that decision.  The state now becomes the arbiter of which doctors you see; what type of medical care you get.  And in the end they will decide whether you live or die.  The British have themselves to blame by insisting on universal medical care and making their government a "mommy" state.   This is the end result of socialized medicine.  And we Americans are moving in that direction and will reap what we sow, as well. 

[Robert Roaldi]

This is what you get with socialized medicine and socialism in general.  By turning responsibility over to the government to take care of you, you forfeit your power and control. 

This is simply not true.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The Schiavo Case as you stated was between two private parties, family members who sued each other.  The government never decided on what health care Terry Schiavo would get.  They only decided which of the private family members were her legal guardian.  The family member would make the decision....

It is not as simple as that.

The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.

[Alan Klein]

This is simply not true.

I already see it here in America.  Since I retired and now have Medicare.  Medicare is our government provided  health insurance if you're over 65 and no longer work or have private insurance.   There are many doctors of higher quality and experience that I cannot use because they do not accept Medicare.  They've opted out.  So because I can no longer afford to pay them out of pocket, I cannot use them. I must use other more inferior doctors that accept Medicare. If I was still younger, I would have private health insurance that would still cover these doctors. 

[Alan Klein]

It is not as simple as that.

The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.

Sure, there was a lot of government and public discussion and intervention to force the decision.  The government even tried to kidnap Schiavo.  But in the end, it was the independent courts all the way up to and including the US Supreme Court, not the government, that decided which  family member had the legal right to decide  whether to continue medical care or not.  Neither the government nor the court decided what that medical care was to be.  That was left up to the husband, the family member the court declared had the legal right to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case#Final_feeding_tube_removal_and_federal_involvement

But all of this is not the main point I was making.  I was trying to show how socialized medicine leads to government takeover of who decides these things.  That family and individuals will be cut out.  That's something I believe you oppose and would agree with my point of view as well.  Socialism leads to loss of individual freedoms.

[jeremyrh]

It is not as simple as that.

The government, conservative in this case, picked the family member to side with based on its conservative right-to-live political views. This wasn't about courts deciding whose power of attorney is stronger, parents' or husband's. That would be strictly a technical, legal, discussion. But no, it involved the POTUS along clearly ideologica lines.

So in fact precisely the opposite of what Alan claimed - that in (all stand please!!) the USA (fanfare!!!) the courts would not be involved and family members could do as they pleased with the luckless patient.

[jeremyrh]

Sure, there was a lot of government and public discussion and intervention to force the decision.  The government even tried to kidnap Schiavo.  But in the end, it was the independent courts all the way up to and including the US Supreme Court, not the government, that decided which  family member had the legal right to decide  whether to continue medical care or not.  Neither the government nor the court decided what that medical care was to be.  That was left up to the husband, the family member the court declared had the legal right to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case#Final_feeding_tube_removal_and_federal_involvement

But all of this is not the main point I was making.  I was trying to show how socialized medicine leads to government takeover of who decides these things.  That family and individuals will be cut out.  That's something I believe you oppose and would agree with my point of view as well.  Socialism leads to loss of individual freedoms.

That was indeed your main point but you’ve failed yet again to provide any support for it. A smarter man would take the opportunity to shut up and learn something. Consider that Jeremy is an expert on medical law. He has taken the time to provide you with a comprehensive explanation of how you are wrong. (Imagine how much he’d charge for that in real life :-) ). Don’t you think it might be wiser to stop digging the hole you’re in and get back to your usual repertoire of how great Trump is, and the rest of the BS? Just a piece of friendly advice.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The individual case is not the question.  Rather, it's who gets to decide generally as presented in the article that I quote again here:
 

"Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"

I take the same view as the article.  So, are you saying that it's writer and all those in the world that believe the same thing are ignorant and ill-informed?  I think on reflection, you might reconsider your views.  Certainly, you don't have to agree with our viewpoint.  But your stance doesn;t have to include insults to those of opposing views.

Alan, I have given you the information necessary for you to form a view on the case which was the subject of your original comment. You have plainly not bothered to read the judgments. Quoting an incorrect view, which misrepresents the facts, does nothing to advance your argument.

The quoted text is simply wrong, yes. As I have clearly indicated, and as is obvious to anyone who is prepared to depart from preconceptions and educate himself on the detail, the case had nothing to do with the state taking a view on life, which you persist in confusing with medical opinion. The "state"'s involvement was simply to adjudicate, by a means long-established, between the views of the medical profession and those of the parents. The first emphasised sentence above displays a complete lack of understanding of the issues, which can have been acquired only because the author, like you, has not troubled to acquaint himself with the actual facts but, again like you, is using the case to advance his prejudice against what he perceives as "socialised medicine". It is wrong. Not arguably wrong, or possibly wrong; just wrong.

The answer to your question, which I have emphasised above, is quite simply yes. If you blind yourself to the facts, the opinions you derive from them are worse than worthless; they are harmful.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Do we want government or family to decide when to pull the plug?  Do we want government or family to decide when a person has lost "quality" living experience?  Do we want to take general medical care out of the hands of parents to give to government officials who don't have a personal stake in the decision?  That's what these laws lead too.  It's a slippery slope when you start granting bureaucrats the right to draw lines according to their moral and personal standards.  It's interesting, we object when government interferes with women making decisions about aborting an unborn child.  Yet we so easily turn over end-of-life decisions to government to decide on living children whether they should die. Don't you see the perverseness in this.  Shouldn't people be also allowed to decide these things?

Your wilfully self-imposed ignorance is little short of staggering. The case raised none of those issues.

Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jeremy