USA Saves baby sentenced to death by UK health care. LIVE WITH DIGNITY!

[Rod1]

Because when you have socialized health care you have to ration it. You see, if you offer free healthcare there is an unlimited demand for healthcare.
Whereas in america we can satisfy any demand for healthcare because we would just have more doctors being produced.

???

No, in America people die because they cant afford $270,000 dollars surgery, you seemed to miss that fact.

Socialists don't care about facts....they are busy handing out death sentences to everyone that does not fit into their Utopia.

UK healthcare system funds a $270k USD surgery and that proves that UHC is bad?

 

[ocfightfan]

Well, this certainly makes up for the thousands of babies that die every year in the US because of substandard healthcare, but that would have lived if they were born in the UK.

Is there anything deadlier than conservatives' obsession with anecdote and complete disregard for data?

Because in other countries high risk pregnancies are more likely to get aborted, and therefore not counted towards the infant mortality rate.

 

[ocfightfan]

???

No, in America people die because they cant afford $270,000 dollars surgery, you seemed to miss that fact.



UK healthcare system funds a $270k USD surgery and that proves that UHC is bad?

After receiving tons of bad publicity and being shamed into it.

 

[Rod1]

After receiving tons of bad publicity and being shamed into it.

Which is still far better than being denied coverage for being poor.

I can assure you there are tens if not hundreds of patients being denied coverage of life saving procedures in America every day by their insurance companies, let alone a procedure that can only be found across the ocean.

If the NHS had denied coverage they would be in the same position as your average American, which is pay or die.

 

[Trotsky]

Because in other countries high risk pregnancies are more likely to get aborted, and therefore not counted towards the infant mortality rate.

Do you have a source/data for this?

I have never heard this suggestion. As far as I can tell, the difference in abortion laws is on elective bases: the United States makes it available for cases in which the mother's live is at risk, and European countries certainly don't strong arm mothers into aborting children out of the government's regard for the mother's safety.

 

[The Merchant]

After receiving tons of bad publicity and being shamed into it.

This is wrong. from the mother last year (this is a year old story being rehashed now for political reasons)

Lydia said: “We don’t want families in the future to go through the stress of fundraising like we did.

“Oliver now has a future we never could have imagined. We’re so grateful to anyone who donated or sent us messages of support. If we could thank them all personally we would.

“The NHS, too, as well as the team in Boston, have been fantastic.

“We’d never have got here if Oliver’s consultants in Oxford and Southampton hadn’t pushed forwards for us. He owes his life to a cast of thousands.”

The NHS had to go through all the shitty red-tape first, which is why the parents started to fund privately, but the decision was made and the actual front line staff and consultants were pushing for the decision to be made.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Well, this certainly makes up for the thousands of babies that die every year in the US because of substandard healthcare, but that would have lived if they were born in the UK.

Is there anything deadlier than conservatives' obsession with anecdote and complete disregard for data?

That's because in America we count stillborn babies as infant deaths... other countries do not.

Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States. In a 2008 study, Joy Lawn estimated that a full three-fourths of the world’s neonatal deaths are counted only through highly unreliable five-yearly retrospective household surveys, instead of being reported at the time by hospitals and health-care professionals, as in the United States.
Moreover, the most premature babies — those with the highest likelihood of dying — are the least likely to be recorded in infant and neonatal mortality statistics in other countries. Compounding that difficulty, in other countries the underreporting is greatest for deaths that occur very soon after birth. Since the earliest deaths make up 75 percent of all neonatal deaths, underreporting by other countries — often misclassifying what were really live births as fetal demise (stillbirths) — would falsely exclude most neonatal deaths.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/

 

[Fugazy]

My, what an intelligent, rational, and mature post.

And you don't seem to understand what a margin of error actually entails. By no means would this stat have a 25% margin of error.

Also, 4,000,000 are born every year in the United States. So that 1.2% difference is 5,000 babies. Compared to the top of the list (Finland)? 20,000 babies.


Lastly, I don't hate it here. I just want it to be better. I want the healthcare to be better, so people live longer and pay less. I also want the education to be better, so people like you exist in fewer numbers.

You fantasize about America's destruction and fetishize everything European.

It must be hard living with the fact that you were born as a such a plain, ordinary white boy that you have to go through life praying for the destruction of your race and culture in hopes that a brown person will like you.

I just want to let you know, from one beautiful brown person, to the limp, pale pile of self-loathing that you are...

It's okay to be white.

It's okay to be American.

You would suck regardless of where you were born.

 

[ultramanhyata]

yay socialism.... you seem to have left this bit of the article out

No American tax payer contributed a cent via the IRS to provide surgery for Oliver. So his life-saving procedure can be celebrated by the MAGAtards. It was done clean and proper like.

 

[nostradumbass]

Then it should be easy to delineate the information using medical records, yes? I'm open to criticism of the methodology, but it would seem that this criticism should be easily supplemented with proof to the contrary - if such proof exists.

But common sense tells me that spurious data isn't to blame, since the US's medical outcomes are mediocre across the board, particularly when (i) adjusting for cost and (ii) considering we have the world's best technology.

Also, don't worry about me throwing you in with bona fide idiot trolls like @Judge just because he's tagging onto your posts. But I do think you'd be wise to consider why your posts attracted such unsavory sponsors.

It would be easy to delineate if it was medical records they're using, but it often isn't. They use some combination of medical records and household surveys, and simply don't count premature babies who die within a few days as live births.

You can't really say "adjusted for cost" for the country that spends infinitely more on R&D as well as red tape costs for getting drugs approved. The point of this story is that the UK hasn't invested enough to even have a doctor who could perform this surgery at all.

Also, even with the flawed data collection, putting it in a graph of that stops at 6 when it's /1,000 is deliberately attempting to make the gap look bigger than it is. We just do not have a higher rate of infant mortality than these other countries, and people here, insurance or not, do not have a serious risk of a still-born outside of a major complication that would have been prevented anywhere else. There are 0 doctors here, who have taken a Hippocratic oath, who are saying "sorry, your baby has to die because your coverage isn't good enough". This just isn't true and your crummy graphs display reporting errors rather than actual data.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

No American tax payer contributed a cent via the IRS to provide surgery for Oliver. So his life-saving procedure can be celebrated by the MAGAtards. It was done clean and proper like.

it was paid for by the UK government.... as stated in the article

 

[xcvbn]

Is medical care a right? If not, why is there hysteria over a decision affirming that it isn't?

 

[curryjunkie]

My, what an intelligent, rational, and mature post.

And you don't seem to understand what a margin of error actually entails. By no means would this stat have a 25% margin of error.

Also, 4,000,000 are born every year in the United States. So that 1.2% difference is 5,000 babies. Compared to the top of the list (Finland)? 20,000 babies.


Lastly, I don't hate it here. I just want it to be better. I want the healthcare to be better, so people live longer and pay less. I also want the education to be better, so people like you exist in fewer numbers.

 

[helltoupee]

Thankfully, Boston Children's Hospital was able to perform a successful surgery on 10-month-old baby Oliver in November of 2017. "When they told us Dr. del Nido had removed all of it, we were so happy we just burst into tears," said mother Lydia, according to the hospital's site.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3321...ves-baby-oliver-after-uk-amanda-prestigiacomo

Pedro J. del Nido, MD

LOL. 99% of your posts about immigration and white homogeneous paradises btfo.

 

[ultramanhyata]

That's because in America we count stillborn babies as infant deaths... other countries do not.

Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States. In a 2008 study, Joy Lawn estimated that a full three-fourths of the world’s neonatal deaths are counted only through highly unreliable five-yearly retrospective household surveys, instead of being reported at the time by hospitals and health-care professionals, as in the United States.
Moreover, the most premature babies — those with the highest likelihood of dying — are the least likely to be recorded in infant and neonatal mortality statistics in other countries. Compounding that difficulty, in other countries the underreporting is greatest for deaths that occur very soon after birth. Since the earliest deaths make up 75 percent of all neonatal deaths, underreporting by other countries — often misclassifying what were really live births as fetal demise (stillbirths) — would falsely exclude most neonatal deaths.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas/

Yeah, National Review has really put those know nothings at the World Health Organization in their place with this propaganda piece.

 

[helltoupee]

personally, id like to see free emergency care in the USA. if you want more than that, you buy it.

If you deny people preventative care, then they will wait until a problem becomes so big that it requires expensive surgeries, aggressive therapies, etc.

It would actually be cheaper in the long run if preventative care was made accessible to everyone.

 

[nostradumbass]

it was paid for by the UK government.... as stated in the article

No, the bulk was raised through charity and the UK gov't paid the balance after getting pressured for sentencing a baby to death. What if the US had the same system and we also just didn't have a doctor who could perform the surgery? Sorry, kid, you just have to die.

 

[The Merchant]

No, the bulk was raised through charity and the UK gov't paid the balance after getting pressured for sentencing a baby to death. What if the US had the same system and we also just didn't have a doctor who could perform the surgery? Sorry, kid, you just have to die.

That's not what happened though. I love how all the pertinent information is collated in 3 pages for you to peruse and check, yet even when lead to the water you shit in rather than drink. Remarkable, stunning wilful ignorance.

 

[ultramanhyata]

it was paid for by the UK government.... as stated in the article

As long as it wasn't on Uncle Sam's dime it is pure MAGA.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

No, the bulk was raised through charity and the UK gov't paid the balance after getting pressured for sentencing a baby to death. What if the US had the same system and we also just didn't have a doctor who could perform the surgery? Sorry, kid, you just have to die.

From the wording I believe the crowd funding pressured the UK government to pay in full. Though I could be wrong, that's what I got from the article.

Edit: didn't read your comment properly. Disregard.