Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

what gov run healthcare gets you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
    I am glad we agree that itself is not an issue but the patient is also the unborn so they had to do what they could to save him or her. Not just the mother.



    In emergency / imminent situations, no time is given to consent / counsel as some of the information can be and is often withheld from the counsel that does not have clearance and requires instant decision or approval one way or another.



    She may well have been in the UK before she got pregnant but again, why would they need or want to? They are plenty qualified and able to make their own judgements in the UK.



    Given that the order was a "High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb." (quoted from the article), the guess is, that they probably didn't want her to know about it...


    Apart from the fact the baby was not due to full term by then i would guess but why would they contact her family? She is a resident in the UK at the time, so under British law, they are not required to, even if time was not an issue back then.


    Well, at least you admit that it is not the healthcare issue that is of importance.

    The government role in family care is another, but this is not some slippery slope that will come to fruition because someone has the ability to go see a doctor that they didn't before.
    you don't see a problem with the bolded statements?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      Yes, the medical health act. Do tell us what that governs?
      Mental Health, regulated by the Home office.

      Mental Health Act 2007

      I stated that before. She was under mental NHS supervision in the psych ward and some form of surgeon had to sign off on the c section. All of those places and interactions are governed by the drs' own medical ethics as well as the law. They have a duty to obtain informed consent and to see to the needs of their patients in obtaining said consent IE getting a lawyer.
      Nope...when under act of section the courts are usually involved so they are the oversight element in this. They have no duty to obtain consent under such circumstances and yes the need of their patients, i.e. the Child along with the mother. Dr and medical ethics are Governed by the GMC.

      As a matter of medical ETHICS. They OBVIOUSLY did not do that.
      By your assessment.

      And they should be punished for that.
      Nope, they did the right thing under UK law and anything else would have been punishable.

      For forcing their patient, sans CONSULTATION much less informed consent, to endure an involuntary, unnecessary, incredibly DANGEROUS, potentially life threatening (for child and mother) and permanently maiming (you never heal right. My ma has had 2 c sections and is a medical professional. Its never the same) procedure, all without checking to see if she had even been assigned COUNSEL (see better. I use them both interchangably here as this is not a court of law) or if HER interests were being looked after. That is a SERIOUS breach of medical ethics.
      Not at all, medical ethics do not require consent by those determined to be unable to give medical consent (children / mentally incapable etc). Whom they are in care of, make that call and she was a patient of the ward, so they decided.

      It was necessary and life saving and both mother and baby are now healthy and alive.

      I'm not talking late term. I'm talking "o ms ghosts in her clothes came up preggers. better nix that real fast" in house abortions. And they DO happen.
      They shouldn't any such offense is punishable in the US since 2003 and classified as Murder in the UK. Could never be done by medical authorities that are, ironically, regulated by the state in the UK.

      SHe was a foreign national on a simple travel visa who was PREGNANT and not intending to give birth in the UK.
      Totally irrelevant as she was in the UK at the time of her breakdown / meltdown and she was held there for her own protection.

      Nor was she ready to give birth naturally.
      Indeed, which is why she was sedated and given a C section.

      Her call to the cops, and a SHORT stay in the psych ward would've been warranted depending on her behavior during her panic attack, as would A) passing her BACK to italy for them to handle or B) passing her AND the kid back ASAP.
      To A, are you suggesting they put a 31 week pregnant bi-polar woman without medication and clearly unstable on a flight home?

      To B, She has only just since recovered, are you proposing that now, having C Sectioned her, that they send a woman who is a self professed kook, back with a newborn baby? They took the child way for a reason. Now, it is a different matter and maybe they could have done it faster but they chose to act based on the fact it is their jurisdiction.

      There are multiple government flights between uk and italy. IF they can pay to keep her in the psych ward and raise her damn kid, they can pay for a plane ticket for her, the kid and the minder. They have EMBASSIES for this sort of shit.
      See this is a problem with libertarians, it always comes back to money. They may have the money ; but until she is safe and no longer a threat to herself or society at large, she can stay locked up. They can't just put her back on a flight btw, that is a violation of UK and EU law. She has rights to avoid deportation and God if you can't deport terrorists from the UK what hope does she have? Embassies are not for this btw.

      If someone did this to an american citizen it would be a "Bad Thing", it would spark off an international incident. People would've handled this with kids gloves. But she's an itai so no one gives a fuck.
      The Italian authorities are well respected in the UK, as are their citizens, in the general consensus between the two countries on catching Romanian criminals and gypsies.

      (I watch a lot of british film and tv, as well as reading many novels to say nothing of my required poli sci studies for my minor in undergrad. I am quite familiar with council housing.)
      Probably more so than i am, i lived in the UK 15 years and travel back frequently but am not that familiar with it other than the stigma associated with it.

      SHe was on it the entire pregnancy and as has been pointed out, the kid is FINE. SO That claim don't hold water.
      But the child wasn't due within hours / days for the entire pregnancy....but of course, thanks to British authorities the child is fine, as is the mother. Than the Universal Healthcare system.

      Not to mention all the tranqs etc they would've been pumping her in the psych ward. There ARE drugs safe for pregnant women. She was ON some of them.
      Again, you'll have to mention to me what they are...but yes, the medication she received again comes from a nationalized health system, remember?

      They'll pay to keep her in the psych ward longer, and pay to raise her kid and fight the legal battles associated with her trying to get her child back, that they STOLE, but they can't pay for 3 plane tickets, one for her one for the kid and one for their minder and then hand them off to italian social services? Or send the kid back at least? Cmon chloe, this is spreading it awfully thin, don't you think?
      They didn't steal the kid...the other daughter chooses to live in the UK, but how about if they handed the child to Italian authorities, would that suit you better? All they were seemingly waiting for is the mother to get well again and as is surely the usual case she would be free to stay in the UK with her child like every other immigrant.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
        Ah yes the old tactic of taking an event such as this and using it to tar an organization used by millions ever year.
        I could just as easily point out an event where someone in the US military has done something horrendous and claim the entire US military were a bunch of thugs but I'm sure I would be to shut up.

        Is this a tragedy? Yes.
        Is this indicative of the entire NHS? No.
        You must've missed the part where I called it a Perception that I freely admit could be mistaken and that I was just as open to POSTIVE stories of the NHS as NEGATIVE ones. But then you had your blinders on so its no wonder you didn't see that when you slunk in for your drive by post.


        See in your example I would then post a POSITIVE story of the US military, like all that aid we're doing now in the phillipines, or that we did in sri lanka etc etc etc etc. Or bailing yours and those sorry cheese eating surrender monkies (that would be the french) asses out of 2 otherwise mortal conflicts. You're welcome by the way From both my grandfathers to you and yours.

        See how that works?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

          Originally posted by reality View Post
          you don't see a problem with the bolded statements?
          Err, no...

          There are some changes that can be made to the law, yes. My interpretation of it may be off but i am just likely arguing the merits of why they did what they did per the statute / laws etc.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

            Originally posted by Chloe View Post
            But the thing is even on the facts of this case Peter is off...this is not a tragedy and has nothing to do with the NHS! He has bought into the crap Reality is spouting about the healthcare services...has NOTHING to do with them!
            again multiple drs both MD and PHD would've had to sign off on her EVERY STEP OF THOSE 5 WEEKS. To be forcibly held a dr would've had to look at her and say "yeah that bitch is crazy" and sign off on that. Pre procedure (it had to go through a high court, meaning they would've needed an expert medical person's opinion. we usually call those "drs") ALSO would've needed a john hancock. From a DIFFERENT dr. (unless her psych pro also performs surgery. Super Dr.! To the rescue!). Its got a bit to do with them.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

              Originally posted by reality View Post
              The healthcare system involves not only physical but mental care as well. Not only did they handle the c section but also the italian woman's psych care. It was by all accounts Ive seen a willing pregnancy and the woman had had a panic attack because she missed her bipolar meds that had otherwise worked well at controlling her condition. She called the cops, while having said panic attack, they took her to the psych ward. WHen she found out she was in the psych ward, she attempted to leave and was sectioned under an act of the healthcare system. That same act let them perform a caesarian without consent, or even without argument from her solicitor which she was NEVER appointed. She was simply tranqed after not even being informed there was this process going on, and had an incredibly dangerous operation that was completely medically unnecessary (neither her's nor her child's health were in danger. no such claim has been made.) was performed without consent or consultation even. All legal actions requiring and I quote "High court approval" without a solicitor. That's bad form all around and yes involves the NHS quite a bit on several levels.

              Forced abortions are usually the norm when a mentally deficient person gets preggers IN the facility (usually by a patient or guard). Not when someone, in this case a foreign national on a short visa, is jammed into care against her will without council and was already far enough along in pregnancy to have a successful c section. If they were afraid of self mutilation they could a) watch her better b) strap her down and sedate her like they apparently had no problem doing c) give her her fucking meds that she was ALREADY taking and managing with D) send her BACK to fucking italy and let THEM deal with her since she's THEIR citizen and she was only in town for a conference/training E) all of the above.

              This is COMPLETELY across the line on all counts.
              And they already HAVE death panels. Rationing care IS a death panel, as surely as triage care is. Hell 0cares new fangled insurance policies don't cover dialysis if you're over 60 even if you need it to live. Its considered "elective". What would you call that? And that's not even single payer.
              Well, if you have evidence that there are death panels, post it.

              But you can ratchet down the rant, especially since you don't know the difference between the Social Services system, which in the UK is a total disaster from all accounts and the Health Care system.

              If you claim such expertise on the British Health Care, Social Services system, perhaps you can post your CV without the vitriol and let us see the "evidence" of all that you claim so we can examine it for ourselves. As I find myself telling American socialist, you saying it don't make it so.

              Oh and please post where you got all those details. having some experience with mental illness and its treatment I would like to see the original documentation to see if it was just a panic attack and not something else, like full onset schizophrenia, as the symptoms are almost identical, as is the case of a half a dozen other possibilities.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                Right i have been saying for the entire thread that a larger argument over the role of government seems a legitimate discussion. But the reason i separate it, is because this was done by the equivalent of something already under the control of the state even in the US. This has nothing to do with what government healthcare gets you ; this is a classic case of what the DCF can already provide for you, which you have already anyway.



                Not at all, the mental health act in the UK is pretty strong, and may need adjusting but from what i have read of it (the 83 act) it is a long long read and very broad upon enforcement. But what authorities did fit exactly into that bill and it was the right thing to do per the baby given it was due ; what would you rather happen? Birth was the only option and the fact she was sectioned was based on her own erratic behavior which she herself spoke about.

                Ironically, getting medication to solve this, was easier under the healthcare set up in the UK more than anywhere in the world so it is sort of a case of Reality needing Reality to save Reality from Reality...incredibly circular.
                And all it costs is freedom! That's pretty cheap! And all that money yall pump into it where its STILL going insolvent (we've got a thread on that here somewheres).

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                  Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
                  But you can ratchet down the rant, especially since you don't know the difference between the Social Services system, which in the UK is a total disaster from all accounts and the Health Care system.
                  Likewise, i am not sure Reality knows how to post without ranting!

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                    Nope...yes the issue is whether to send the child back or not, but that is the only thing really up for dispute.
                    Well I find it pretty thin, hence the thread.
                    Giving the child back should not BE in dispute. As you have stated he is not a UK citizen by virtue of birth, he is an ITALIAN citizen. Hand him over to the proper ITALIAN authority and have done. Anything else is rampant abuse.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      And all it costs is freedom! That's pretty cheap! And all that money yall pump into it where its STILL going insolvent (we've got a thread on that here somewheres).
                      The NHS?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        Well I find it pretty thin, hence the thread.
                        Giving the child back should not BE in dispute. As you have stated he is not a UK citizen by virtue of birth, he is an ITALIAN citizen. Hand him over to the proper ITALIAN authority and have done. Anything else is rampant abuse.
                        The thing is, the longer this goes on, the more accustomed to British ways the child will be, the more it will have adapted to its surroundings etc, so the case for sending him or her back to Italy needs to be made now only the longer this is disputed the less of a case there is to uproot him from his home environment.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          You must've missed the part where I called it a Perception that I freely admit could be mistaken and that I was just as open to POSTIVE stories of the NHS as NEGATIVE ones. But then you had your blinders on so its no wonder you didn't see that when you slunk in for your drive by post.


                          See in your example I would then post a POSITIVE story of the US military, like all that aid we're doing now in the phillipines, or that we did in sri lanka etc etc etc etc. Or bailing yours and those sorry cheese eating surrender monkies (that would be the french) asses out of 2 otherwise mortal conflicts. You're welcome by the way From both my grandfathers to you and yours.

                          See how that works?
                          It's one incident.


                          Let's see. One person signs up for Obamacare, does that mean I can Post "IT's a success?"

                          Come on, its sensationalism in the worst degree. There are so many extenuating circumstances on this it's a sieve and nothing anyone with a reasoning mind would see as the coming of DEATH PANELS!

                          This is beyond hyperbole

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                            Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                            The NHS?
                            I find this idea that the NHS is somehow something that shackles us and makes us less free really odd. You can argue our political system is less free than yours (I dissagree) but I don't understand how a different system of paying for healthcare which everyone will need at some point makes us less free.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                              I was just asking him to clarify whether it was the NHS he was referring to, though.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                                Mental Health, regulated by the Home office.

                                Mental Health Act 2007



                                Nope...when under act of section the courts are usually involved so they are the oversight element in this. They have no duty to obtain consent under such circumstances and yes the need of their patients, i.e. the Child along with the mother. Dr and medical ethics are Governed by the GMC.



                                By your assessment.



                                Nope, they did the right thing under UK law and anything else would have been punishable.



                                Not at all, medical ethics do not require consent by those determined to be unable to give medical consent (children / mentally incapable etc). Whom they are in care of, make that call and she was a patient of the ward, so they decided.

                                It was necessary and life saving and both mother and baby are now healthy and alive.



                                They shouldn't any such offense is punishable in the US since 2003 and classified as Murder in the UK. Could never be done by medical authorities that are, ironically, regulated by the state in the UK.



                                Totally irrelevant as she was in the UK at the time of her breakdown / meltdown and she was held there for her own protection.



                                Indeed, which is why she was sedated and given a C section.



                                To A, are you suggesting they put a 31 week pregnant bi-polar woman without medication and clearly unstable on a flight home?

                                To B, She has only just since recovered, are you proposing that now, having C Sectioned her, that they send a woman who is a self professed kook, back with a newborn baby? They took the child way for a reason. Now, it is a different matter and maybe they could have done it faster but they chose to act based on the fact it is their jurisdiction.



                                See this is a problem with libertarians, it always comes back to money. They may have the money ; but until she is safe and no longer a threat to herself or society at large, she can stay locked up. They can't just put her back on a flight btw, that is a violation of UK and EU law. She has rights to avoid deportation and God if you can't deport terrorists from the UK what hope does she have? Embassies are not for this btw.



                                The Italian authorities are well respected in the UK, as are their citizens, in the general consensus between the two countries on catching Romanian criminals and gypsies.



                                Probably more so than i am, i lived in the UK 15 years and travel back frequently but am not that familiar with it other than the stigma associated with it.



                                But the child wasn't due within hours / days for the entire pregnancy....but of course, thanks to British authorities the child is fine, as is the mother. Than the Universal Healthcare system.



                                Again, you'll have to mention to me what they are...but yes, the medication she received again comes from a nationalized health system, remember?



                                They didn't steal the kid...the other daughter chooses to live in the UK, but how about if they handed the child to Italian authorities, would that suit you better? All they were seemingly waiting for is the mother to get well again and as is surely the usual case she would be free to stay in the UK with her child like every other immigrant.
                                Governing the NHS. So yes.

                                Great. So now a COURT didn't bother to appoint a lawyer. Cause thats SOOOOOOOO much better.

                                No, by the assessment of the great gazoo. Who else would I be speaking for here?

                                Not appointing counsel to a person being jammed in a psych ward SHOULD be punishable under law. If its not, you've got a problem.

                                They (baby and mother) should have been in the care of their respective counsels.

                                and it used to be common practice. Or must I quote the scotus case "3 generations of imbeciles is enough"?

                                She was held for 5 weeks. She should've been stabilzed and arrangements made with her embassy/family to get her home SUPERVISED.

                                Which is what I'm bitching about. It WASN"T necessary UNTIL she was PAST due or the childs health was in danger. which it wasn't when the mother was medicated. You telling me they couldn't get her back on her meds in 5 weeks? But the NHS is so great I thought?

                                A) she HAD the meds with her and FORGOT TO TAKE THEM ONCE. It is my suggestion that they pass her to the italian embassy or her family. There werre multiple opitons all of them cheaper and less intrusive.
                                b) see A.

                                Shes not a resident! She had outstayed her VISA! Its not deportation if she WANTS TO LEAVE.

                                WOrld view hun. Think big picture.

                                Its stigmatized for good reason, all of which a) are not cogent to this thread and b) you would'nt find that terrible considering your views.

                                I would say in spite of. If that procedure hadn't gone off without a hitch yall would be FARTHER up shit creek. Go ahead and look up the failure rate of c sections.

                                No the meds her italian dr gave her and she took WITH her to the UK. The ones the cops could've BROUGHT WITH THEM when they picked her up.

                                The daughter CHOOSES and shes an ADULT. The MOTHER and the REST of the family applicable for guradianship live in italy by CHOICE. He's an italian citizen, so YES I would be marginally less pissed off if they would return him to the care of his own nation.

                                (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

                                Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
                                It's one incident.


                                Let's see. One person signs up for Obamacare, does that mean I can Post "IT's a success?"

                                Come on, its sensationalism in the worst degree. There are so many extenuating circumstances on this it's a sieve and nothing anyone with a reasoning mind would see as the coming of DEATH PANELS!

                                This is beyond hyperbole
                                Holy fucking shit. It must be a disease! THATS why none of you can read what I write! Look like I'm getting a nobel prize soon. Who wants to touch me?

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X