Posted on 07/19/2017 4:43:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
I woke up very early this morning with the tortured picture of an infant running through my mind.
Charlie Gard has a tube through his nose into his lungs, connected to a machine that breathes for him. He has all the latest electronics monitoring his status. But he is unable to provide any indication of his pleasure or pain at the process. He is dying from a horrendous genetic disease that robs his body of the ability to move, breathe, or respond.
Next I saw his parents. Their expression conveyed the pain that Charlie cannot. But their pain is not physical; it is emotional. That is understandable, since their child is dying. And their anguish is magnified by an emotionless megalith against which they flail to no avail. Single-payer "health care" has taken their child from them, even while he is still alive.
Such pictures are not new to me. During my time in critical care medicine, I saw many hopeless cases. Their diseases had reached a stage where there was no medical reason to continue treatment. They had no material chance to recover to a point where they would have any meaningful life away from extensive (and expensive) medical support. And because these medical circumstances were not rare, I helped write my hospital's policy on Futility of Care. But Charlie Gard's case is different from the ones I was involved with.
When Charlie Gard entered Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, England's single-payer health system, the National Health Service, took over. At first, it seemed that this was a good thing, since his parents didn't have to pay extra for his care. But they didn't have a choice. They weren't in the small minority who are either wealthy enough or favorably employed to access private insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Every time someone proposes single-payer, throw Charlie Gard in his face. He is single-payer – state ownership of the individual.”
I’ve observed the health care story over the years and have come to the conclusion that it really isn’t about the money. The greater number of the stories have been focused on cost, money, cost, money etc.
The health care thing is about power. Money is just a convenient way to camouflage that sorry fact. In an illusionist’s world, it called a misdirect.
Charlie Gard is proof. I don’t care about the money, I want my freedom back.
I notice the British broadsheets have gone to ground with this story. Guess it makes them look bad...
It makes a lot of people and institutions look bad. The British don’t have a written constitution that protects its citizenry from its government. They need one. STAT.
The liberals had a field day roasting Sarah Palin over her comments about Death Panels. This case is an example of what they look like.
In capitalism goods and services are controlled by money. In socialism the government controls them.
I find it odd that while I read articles on "uploading your consciousness to an android to live forever", others are trying to snuff out a helpless life.
‘The health care thing is about power.’
Absolutely. Charlie’s parents raised well over a million pounds towards his medical expenses, and at least two foreign hospitals *wanted* to accept Charlie and assume responsibility for his care. At that point it would have saved the NHS big bucks simply to allow Charlie to be transferred.
The NHS retained their death grip on Charlie at that point simply as a means of decreeing the day of his death. Their sadistic jerking around of the parents was an object lesson to their other subjects: the power of NHS is absolute—submit!
100% true.
It also demonstrates how to frame an issue. Just a little hint for the Republitards.
I can remember when Hillary”care” didn’t allow Americans to use their own money to pay for their own healthcare. Little Charlie’s parents raised the money, but the courts still stopped them from coming to the U.S..
Chalie’s parents asked last November for permission to bring their son here.
In this case, NHS, I think...was worried about the implications. If you opened the door for Charlie Gard...what happens next week when the next Charlie Gard comes to the door? Is there enough money to cover twenty-odd Charlie Gards per week? The answer is no.
NHS is designed to work and carry out a responsibility with ‘X’ amount of funding. If you weigh 275 pounds and have a bad hip and require a hip-replacement...why would NHS fund it? You would get stopped for the weight issue first, and have to demonstrate that you’ve lost X-amount of weight before they’d pay for the new hip. The whole system is built to work with the funding that they collect.
I do agree, when we go to single-payer, we will get the same type solution, with absolutely no one happy. But the minute that people said that everyone was in the same bucket and you wanted affordable health-care....well....this is the only way to package that gimmick.
Your summary makes excellent sense. Thanks for the input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.