It kind of does. Brits decided to surrender their health to the government and now are mad about having government medicine.
The ruling would have been the same if there was no government healthcare in Britain. Why does nobody understand this?
-
-
I'm pretty sure it would be different, it wouldn't be up to a bureaucrat, because they're not paying for it.
-
Wrong. The whole case was based on the parents wanting to take the child to the US and pay for it themselves.
-
Not wrong, and this is obviously futile, so I'm going to stop wasting my time.
-
How is a simple question of fact futile? The Charlie Gard case was not about whether the government should pay, that was never suggested.
-
It was not about whether the parents should be allowed to get private treatment, that happens every day, it's completely normal.
-
It was about whether a bunch of social workers and judges can decide whether it was in the child's personal interest to live or die.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Private healthcare is very common in Britain. The judge that ruled that keeping Charlie Gard alive would be child abuse probably uses it.
-
Private healthcare doesn't go in front a judge in the first place, because they don't have to beg anyone to let them keep doing it.
-
Yes they do. That is what the case was about. If the government says it's in the interest of your child to die, you have to beg.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.