And it's not guaranteed she would have gotten a place in the trial.
That's a good point that it's relatively easy to fundraise.
I've been reading all the articles I can find about this and I don't understand why she and her family didn't take matters in their own hands instead of waiting for the doctors in the UK to do it for her.
Some of the articles make it seem like she was on some version of house arrest under palliative care. But from other articles and what an Anon from the UK who has been following this story says, she could have left at any time.
Mmm, that subject can get really prickly really fast.
Anytime it's pointed out that for-profit healthcare is a product of capitalism, people get really angry and defensive because they think it's criticizing capitalism to point that out.
But how would we change it? Ban people in the medical field from making a profit? Or capping the amount of profit they can make? Considering the (in my opinion, valid) low opinion of Big Pharma and the healthcare system in general around here, most people wouldn't have a problem with that.
But if we somehow prevented people from making a profit, or capping their profit, on healthcare, then our entire healthcare system would be crippled. Because most people involved aren't going to stick around just out of the goodness of their hearts.
So what then? Have the government fund research and development and production of healthcare services? Now we have socialized healthcare.
So you see how fast that conversation can get heated?
I don't think this really has to do with socialized healthcare failing. It's an experimental treatment found in Canada, which also has socialized healthcare.
And because it was an experimental treatment, it wouldn't have been covered by Canada's healthcare treatment. She was going to have to pay for it out of pocket anyway because she wasn't a Canadian. And since her family had already bankrupted themselves with lawyer fees, she didn't have a way to pay for it.
And then after all that, it's still Big Pharma, which isn't to be trusted.
In the end, I think this is a very sad story about a young woman with a horrible fatal illness who, for various reasons, wasn't able to try an experimental treatment (which most likely couldn't be trusted anyway).
And someone saw a way to use this poor girl's tragedy to stoke up fear and anger and sell newspapers.
and nobody was forcing her to stay in that hospital, or stopping her from travelling elsewhere for treatment, that just isn't true
Thanks for letting us know this. The stuff I was reading about it said that the doctors had ordered her into palliative care against her wishes and the wishes of her family. It made it seem like she was under the equivalent of house arrest.
That really makes a difference in how I see this. If she was able to leave but chose not to, then that's on her.
I'm really conflicted on this. I 100% am behind people being able to seek whatever treatment they would like. And I don't believe that they should have been able to force her into palliative care against her wishes and the wishes of her family.
But how was she going to pay for the experimental treatment? That type of treatment is really expensive. She wanted to go to Canada to get it, but she was not a Canadian. Canada had no obligation to pay for any treatment she got there. And considering how Big Pharma is not to be trusted, why would it be a good idea to trust them about this therapy?
And why are they making a point out of telling us she's Christian? I don't see anywhere how her religion affects this case. I get the impression that because of her name and appearance people might presume she's non-Christian. I kind of feel like they're trying to trigger other Christians into getting angry on her behalf over this in some misguided belief that Christians are being persecuted in the UK.
PS- I just saw a post on this thread that has made me look at this a different way. Someone from the UK who has been following this story says that she was free to leave anytime she wanted. The articles I read made it seem like she was under the equivalent of house arrest when she was put into palliative care. If that's not true and she had the opportunity to leave to go to Canada whenever she wanted, then the Doctors in the UK aren't responsible for her not seeking treatment there, in my opinion.
Trump didn't dismantle Obamacare. The only thing he did was to do away with the penalty for not having health insurance. Not that this was a small thing. I'm happy he did that much. But everything else about Obamacare is the same as it was.
This is something that really pisses me off with the Republicans in Congress. They raised hell about Obamacare for years and yet when they took control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and had the power to gut it and replace it with something better, they chose to stick their thumbs up their asses instead. They had 8 years while Obama was in office to come up with something better. But what did they do instead? That's right, they stuck their thumbs all the way up their poopers.
And then they turn around and blame the Democrats for everything. Most of the Republicans in Congress aren't any better than the Democrats.
I know that in girls, generally speaking, they don't start their menses until they reach around 100 pounds. Childhood obesity is a big problem especially in America. Girls are hitting that 100 pound mark earlier and earlier so that makes them go through puberty sooner. I wonder if there might be some similarity in boys where puberty is influenced by weight. Look at all the hormones that are pumped into our food supply, too. I think that might be a factor in kids going through puberty earlier, too.
Africa has one government? That certainly is surprising. I'm going to take a wild guess and say this American pastor has never been to Africa. He probably couldn't name four countries in Africa.
But, yeah. Homosexuality isn't as accepted over there as it is in North America and Europe.
We're talking about the seat in the Senate. Not governor.
I'm not sure how accurate your opinion is that he would have easily won. That just doesn't jibe with the general attitude at the time.
Either way, he never officially entered the race for the Senate seat.
Haley was asked as many questions as Vivek despite her being WAY lower in the polls.
Polls swing back and forth all the time. Remember that when Trump first entered into the primaries, his poll numbers were very low. If they had thought like you back then, they would probably have ignored Trump completely because of his low poll rankings.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-unfavorable-polls-224454
Exactly. I wish I knew why people have started saying that the US is not a democracy. It's like one day I got online and into some chatrooms and suddenly everyone was jumping on anyone who said the US was a Democracy.
It concerns me that so many US citizens don't really understand the basic concept of Democracy and are now showing a lot of anger and scorn when someone talks about Democracy.
A republic is a form of democracy. It's a representational democracy. What you're talking about with mob rule is called a direct democracy.
The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government. -USCISdotgov
That's from the US government Citizenship and Immigration Services. It helps explain things like what a representative democracy is to immigrants. They have some very easy to understand booklets and quiz sheets, if you're interested in learning more about it.
I didn't take offense because she stood up to brainwashing. I said that I didn't agree with people applauding how she did it. I don't think that sets a good example. There are plenty of ways to protest what Biden is doing. It's possible to do that while making a valid point. Just saying- Fuk Joe Biden- does nothing to call out his actions. It's just being vulgar (for an 8 year old in a school class). She could have said -Joe Biden is creeping on kids- or -Joe Biden is breaking the law to help his son. Or anything along those lines. There are plenty of illegal, unethical, and immoral things she could have chosen to criticize Biden. That way she's standing up against brainwashing, informing her classmates of why she's doing so, and also respecting herself, her teacher, and her class by doing it intelligently and civilly.
Yes, I corrected myself on that. If you read the entire conversation, you will see why.
Just to save you the time and trouble of finding the post I'm talking about, here is where I corrected myself.
Yeah, I realized after I read through that article that he never ran at all. It's crazy how things like that works its way into your head. Even though I remembered all that stuff from when it happened, I've seen so many people here say he ran for that office, it just got stuck in my head.
I disagree that an 8 year old child should say fuk Joe Biden or fuk anyone else in class. Yes, I'm an American. It's wonderful that we have the freedom to have different opinions and the freedom to be able to express those opinions. Wouldn't you agree on that?
I agree that huge markups in healthcare are not ethical. But where do we draw the line there? Who determines what is an acceptable amount of profit? And do we apply that to all businesses or just healthcare?
Doctors and nurses are just a tiny percentage of where money goes in healthcare.
And you can't force businesses or healthcare workers to accept what you believe is a reasonable profit. The only reason most people work in areas like pharmaceuticals and hospital equipment manufacturing and supply is because of those huge profits. You cut their profits and they're going to go somewhere else to make their money. So our healthcare system still collapses.
I'm not on the side of for-profit healthcare. Or advocating for people in the medical industry making huge profits. I'm also not advocating for socialized healthcare. I'm just trying to point out the realities of the business.