3 ms·

You misinterpret or spin the data from your link. Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percen

You misinterpret or spin the data from your link. Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare". What is "healthcare" as defined in this PR piece from the UK government? Where do factors like average wait time to see a specialist or have surgery weigh in? I could take those same numbers and say, "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, all while allowing all its people the complete freedom to control their own health outcomes." For the record, I'm not a health libertarian, but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week.

DanBC 8y ago
> Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare" Yes, that's the point. The US government spends more on healthcare, but that huge spend doesn't cover the whole population. > "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, Why does the US have such poor mortality figures if health care is so good and if everyone can access it? > but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week. In the US cases of medical futility the doctors announce their plan to remove life support and if the parents disagree they have to go to court to stop it happening. In the UK the doctors need to get the agreement of the parents, and if the parents don't agree the doctors have to go to court. In that court process the family can get legal aid (if they meet the financial test) - Alfie Evan's parents went through 7 legal firms, and they had expert counsel of a well respected silk and two juniors. But also Alfie had his own legal representation. Alfie Evans had 16 months of excellent health care, followed by robust legal protection to make sure his best interests were looked after. His family are poor. He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  > But also Alfie had his own legal representation. What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism. > He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US. Absolute nonsense spread by someone who has no knowledge of the American system. A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals with some of the best doctors in the world, and other charities house the family, for no cost, during treatment. You know, like the Vatican offered, and the parents accepted, but apparently you're government decided it was time for Alfie to die.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    > What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism. So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK. Fortunately English law disagrees, and believes that children are not their parents' property. If you want to know more, start here and follow the thread: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195747005476864 https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/98919574700547686...
    - fortythirteen 8y ago
      Who in their right mind think's a toddler's best interest is to die?
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Who in their right mind thinks it's okay to subject a dying child to severe pain and discomfort in order to keep him alive for a few extra days? American religious fundamentalists, that's who: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/992005732726988800 https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/99200573272698880...
      - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago

DanBC 8y ago

> Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare" Yes, that's the point. The US government spends more on healthcare, but that huge spend doesn't cover the whole population. > "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, Why does the US have such poor mortality figures if health care is so good and if everyone can access it? > but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week. In the US cases of medical futility the doctors announce their plan to remove life support and if the parents disagree they have to go to court to stop it happening. In the UK the doctors need to get the agreement of the parents, and if the parents don't agree the doctors have to go to court. In that court process the family can get legal aid (if they meet the financial test) - Alfie Evan's parents went through 7 legal firms, and they had expert counsel of a well respected silk and two juniors. But also Alfie had his own legal representation. Alfie Evans had 16 months of excellent health care, followed by robust legal protection to make sure his best interests were looked after. His family are poor. He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.

fortythirteen 8y ago
> But also Alfie had his own legal representation. What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism. > He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US. Absolute nonsense spread by someone who has no knowledge of the American system. A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals with some of the best doctors in the world, and other charities house the family, for no cost, during treatment. You know, like the Vatican offered, and the parents accepted, but apparently you're government decided it was time for Alfie to die.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  > What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism. So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK. Fortunately English law disagrees, and believes that children are not their parents' property. If you want to know more, start here and follow the thread: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195747005476864 https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/98919574700547686...
  - fortythirteen 8y ago
    Who in their right mind think's a toddler's best interest is to die?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Who in their right mind thinks it's okay to subject a dying child to severe pain and discomfort in order to keep him alive for a few extra days? American religious fundamentalists, that's who: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/992005732726988800 https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/99200573272698880...
    - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago