Single Payer System = Death Panels.

[The Conservative]

You assume that I'm a fan of Romney- er, ObamaCare? It's the worst possible solution between single-payer and Private.

RomneyCare was a better system than ObamaCare... we were able to keep our doctors.

Umm... ok? Are you agreeing?

[Kazmyr]

He's setting you up for the...

[The Conservative]

He's setting you up for the...

You mean more like:

[SuburbanFarmer]

RomneyCare was a better system than ObamaCare... we were able to keep our doctors.

Umm... ok? Are you agreeing?

I think I was going to reply, then the babies started crying. I don't recall my thought now.

[ssu]

I'd love to see health care brought back to the people, but since people have gotten so used to sucking on the tit of the government for health insurance (not care), we may as well create a system that works to appease all... since taking it away isn't going to happen, and revamping it the way it's been offered is assinine...

Let's not take the old system, make it nation wide and start from scratchs

I think the major problem is that the whole focus is in changing the present system and it cannot start from scratch.

Basically the corrupt system has made the government so weak that it cannot simply force something like a judge in court to the corporations that profit from the system. Today something like Standard Oil wouldn't be put into pieces by the Supreme Court as in 1911. Heck, any kind of "anti-Trust legislation" as back then would be deemed "socialist" now.

[MilSpecs]

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?

All of them.

2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?

Line drawing is why we have courts. I would say it's pretty clear that on the wrong side of the line are medical procedures intended to cause harm, disease, or disability to a child (or any person under a disability). See, e.g., abortion, puberty blockers for sexual preference, refusing necessary treatment, &c.

3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? "Human experimentation" is a trigger phrase.

What does this mean? It appears that all medicine, all science, is a process of experimentation. I also object to "won't help." This implies certainty, or intent to cause waste and/or injury. I'm willing to accept that a patient with informed consent can make a choice about the difference in "won't help" and "might or might not help."

Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

With the objection noted, Yes. It is ethical to try out new medical ideas on children who need help under the right circumstances. What a shitty way to frame the question.

See, e.g., from this week's news: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/07 ... m_medium=2

As miraculous as Eden's experience was, it's important to note that it's just a single case-report. This one case cannot prove that hyperbaric oxygen therapy would work for others in similar situations.

1) All of them? You can't think of any rights that we exercise that might not be a good idea for children? or some rights we do have that we don't afford to children?

2) Agreed except for the extraneous abortion reference and the practical application of pubertal blockers instead of permanent changes to the body. Pubertal blockers are temporary and are considered an ethical way of buying time until the patient is mature enough to make permanent decisions.

3) Call a spade a spade - it's human experimentation. If there's a chance something could help then I can see trying, but there sometimes is not a chance. The question is: is it ethical to prolong someone's suffering in the hopes it will end others' suffering? and is it ever ethical to do so to a child? Frame the question differently if you don't like bluntness, just don't change its meaning.

[The Conservative]

I'd love to see health care brought back to the people, but since people have gotten so used to sucking on the tit of the government for health insurance (not care), we may as well create a system that works to appease all... since taking it away isn't going to happen, and revamping it the way it's been offered is assinine...

Let's not take the old system, make it nation wide and start from scratchs

I think the major problem is that the whole focus is in changing the present system and it cannot start from scratch.

Basically the corrupt system has made the government so weak that it cannot simply force something like a judge in court to the corporations that profit from the system. Today something like Standard Oil wouldn't be put into pieces by the Supreme Court as in 1911. Heck, any kind of "anti-Trust legislation" as back then would be deemed "socialist" now.

What I mean start from scratch is utilize the health insurance we have now, but make it a national health insurance, I've said this elsewhere.

An insurance plan for all 50 states. It can't go above 10% of income and it would allow for millions to to be on a single plan instead of tens of thousands on a bunch of small plans. The risk group would be significantly smaller and so would the costs to the majority. (Using today's laws.)

[ssu]

What I mean start from scratch is utilize the health insurance we have now, but make it a national health insurance, I've said this elsewhere.

An insurance plan for all 50 states. It can't go above 10% of income and it would allow for millions to to be on a single plan instead of tens of thousands on a bunch of small plans. The risk group would be significantly smaller and so would the costs to the majority. (Using today's laws.)

10% of income? Jesus.

Well, here as there is basically a national health insurance (which is sponsored by general taxation) over 4/5 of the people don't have any private health insurance. Why would you need it. The 900 000 million who have typically have it through their work or then they have insurance if their children get ill (and they want to go to the Private sector).

[The Conservative]

What I mean start from scratch is utilize the health insurance we have now, but make it a national health insurance, I've said this elsewhere.

An insurance plan for all 50 states. It can't go above 10% of income and it would allow for millions to to be on a single plan instead of tens of thousands on a bunch of small plans. The risk group would be significantly smaller and so would the costs to the majority. (Using today's laws.)

10% of income? Jesus.

Well, here as there is basically a national health insurance (which is sponsored by general taxation) over 4/5 of the people don't have any private health insurance. Why would you need it. The 900 000 million who have typically have it through their work or then they have insurance if their children get ill (and they want to go to the Private sector).

10% max I said... not mandatory. As for me though it would be cheaper than what I pay now... I make $4000 a month, I pay $600 a month for a family plan for cheap ass health insurance. My insurance would drop by $200 a month. I pay $10,000 out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. That is ObamaCare... one big shit show after another.

My suggestion would not only reduce the cost of insurance but also increase the pool required to balance out the sick and healthy by having such a large pool of people quite a few things would be better than what we have now.

[clubgop]

So, in the end it's insurance companies and lawyers, I guess who are the winner besides big Pharma.

Pretty sure the lawyers love to sink their fangs into Big pharma as well.