Posted on 07/27/2017 7:05:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
As the father of a 2-month-old, I can only imagine the horror the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard are going through. No words, no thoughts or prayers, or even time, will be able to wipe away their pain.
But that pain did not have to be so great, and it may not have had to have been at all were it not for the single-payer health care system in the United Kingdom and the bureaucrats politicians who rallied to keep Charlie a prisoner to it.
Gard was born with a rare genetic disease that was working to destroy his body. A few months after his birth he wasnt able to live without machines feeding and breathing for him. All medical professionals involved said there was little chance anything could help Charlie.
But note that phrase: little chance.
As a new father, I know there is nothing I wouldnt do to protect my daughter or make her better if, God forbid, something horrible were to happen. Charlies parents, as would most parents, felt the same way.
Unfortunately for the Gards, their government didnt agree.
Often held up as the gold standard of single-payer health care, the National Health Services in the UK is great if you get the flu or break your arm, but its not so good if you are afflicted with something that requires serious treatment.
The NHS had reached the end of its compassion with Charlie and decided it would be better for him if they stopped paying to keep him alive. The family, naturally, fought it.
What business are family medical decisions to government? In a single-payer system where government controls who gets what care and for how long, every decision is the business of government. When the faceless bureaucracy decides youve had enough, youre done. You can appeal, somewhat, but youre not appealing to some neutral arbiter, youre appealing to the same government that denied you in the first place.
Your chances, under those circumstances, are not good.
In Charlie Gards case, his parents werent asking for extraordinary measures that would cost taxpayers untold millions. They simply were asking to be set free to be allowed to take their child to the United States for a long-shot experimental treatment. They raised the money on their own more than $1.6 million worth so it would have cost the government nothing. Still, they were denied at every turn.
Why would a government block parents from a treatment it didnt have to pay for? The answer highlights one of the more glaring problems with the Democratic Partys dream of bringing single-payer health care to this country.
You see, the money was never the issue. As I said, the parents raised the money on their own, it would have cost nothing. Its the concept.
Single-payer health care exists under the banner of compassion and access, but it actually functions as a form of government control. The government sets the prices and decides what treatments are available based on the price. If a procedure could work but is too expensive, tough. Same goes for drug treatments.
Theres a reason we in the United States are on the leading edge of new treatments and therapeutic drugs, often seeing innovations hit the market months or years before theyre available elsewhere. And its not government involvement. Theres also a reason the worlds rich come to the US when theyre seriously ill and dont stay in their universal health care countries, and its not out of a desire to pay for something they could get for free back home.
No, part of the reason the UK couldnt let Charlie have a chance at life was because if they let him have one, others would want one too. And people would start to wonder why they arent getting the latest and greatest medicine on the planet. They might start demanding more from a government unwilling to give it to them. Which is the problem with single-payer health care you are a ward of the state, not an individual.
The individuals in these countries are irrelevant, disposable, unless theyre rich, politically powerful or royalty. Its the collective that matters. If members of the collective start to question why they have to wait months for a routine procedure when the United States can deliver it nearly on demand, or why some procedures simply arent available to them, well, that would lead to trouble.
When everyone has to wait, no one is aware that theyre waiting, and when everyones care is rationed you get the idea.
Its the same rationale that kept the US media from reporting on Charlies struggle or asking any Democrat whether they thought his parents should be allowed to save his life both support a single-payer system for us. The agenda must be protected, the narrative must be advanced which is how you end up with the networks spending more time talking about the death of a baby whale than Charlies plight.
Allowing Charlie Gards parents to turn over that last stone, no matter how unlikely a positive outcome may have been, would highlight the many stones a single-payer health system leaves unturned for the sake of the bottom line. Insurers need this secret kept to maintain as much of the status quo as possible. And they are willing to kill to keep it that way.
Could Charlies life have been saved? Unlikely. But thanks to the UKs National Health Service, well never know. The government machine managed to delay any hope for that beyond the point of no return. Make no mistake about it, although his disease will be Charlie Gards cause of death, it will be the system trying to protect itself that ultimately killed him.
And yet even a partial help might shine the light down a path that some future Charlie could travel.
There are 1 million cures for sick rats. Fine if you’re a sick rat. Not so fine if you’re a sick human.
With the cancer yes I agree... but I was referring to the treatment he got... which as far as I can tell was just as good as what he would get here..
I went through Hodgkins myself 11 years ago so I know a little about cancer and treatments.
But again the cornucopia of American knowhow was visited and copied.
Why couldn’t Charlie have been yielded at his own parents’ demand to try a nugget from that cornucopia. They’ve gotten full of themselves over there.
I have the opportunity to talk with a lot of tourists from Europe and have found this to be the case in most countries. The socialists in this country really have no clue what they are asking for. It works completely opposite of how they think it does.
There has never been any true compassion in a socialist system, there is always cause and effect. And if welfare payments were taxed 50% as “income” before dispersal they would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
Mostly true, Mostly i was referring to the timely and effective treatment he received.
As to WHY they wont let him go home, that seems pretty heartless to me, maybe all the machines they need to keep him alive wont fit in the house, that I dont know for sure just a guess. He sounds already like he has massive brain damage. Not sure “alive” is the right word.
I had a friend that went through this... and I sure wouldnt call it “alive”...yeah the machine kept him breathing and his heart there.. but “he” wasnt there..
terribly sad case :(... I hope the parents can recover..
Wrong. It’s not murder. It’s not killing.
It’s preventing treatment that might work. Reprehensible, but not murder. Words have meanings. Choosing the wrong word to describe a situation doesn’t change the situation.
I do think it is hopeless (as well as not our business) to constantly attack the NHS. As you point out, it is their system and they are absolutely gaga over it. I guess you could compare it to our appreciation of Social Security.
I just do not want single payer here. I’m getting to an age that would have the death panels salivating!
Same situation in Canada. Deep down I think many if not most Canadians suspect there are chinks in the armor of Universal healthcare; but they dare not speak it. Instead they double down on praising our system. We have gotten use to it and have learned to live with it.
Well yes, but the American system is the punching bag in those countries. Even talking about “reform” gets the usual “Oh, so you want the US system then where the poor don’t get care?”.
Praising our system? Canadians and Brits do nothing but bash our system - even people who have never visited the USA.
Phillips is blaming the American media for the NHS/GOSH debacle. She also blames our judiciary system for some odd reason. Melanie is right-wing but is very dumb on the USA.
She’s not blaming our medical system; she’s blaming our media for trying to destroy the NHS system. She also blamed our judiciary while praising wonderful British judges (tell that to Timothy Evans, but I digress).
Down here 'on the street', it takes up to six weeks to get an appointment with an approved-from-the-list GP, who has to issue a referral from the approved list, which takes another two or three months for an appointment, and only prescriptions and treatments on the approved list are approved. And that is what life is like for a lot of America. So it's a bit misleading for the author to claim that in America health care is, 'nearly on demand'. The only health care on demand is ER care and even that is limited to immediate and temporary preservation of life.
On the street? Are you homeless? If you are, move to NYC. Blue states have wonderful Medicaid. I shouldn’t tell you that, of course, but it’s true.
If the British Judge had sided with the parents and not the hospital the baby probably could have been saved. It was reported that one of the US physicians had a case with a patient that had the same decease several years ago. The Patient is still alive.
s
Is Obamacare likewise the fault of the American people?
This is an act of terrorism as far as I’m concerned.
Finally, someone is calling this fiasco what it really is — MURDER!
Single-payer health care exists under the banner of compassion and access, but it actually functions as a form of government control. The government sets the prices and decides what treatments are available based on the price. If a procedure could work but is too expensive, tough. Same goes for drug treatments.
...
Isn’t it strange how these same governments are willing to spend any amount of money on the climate change scam?
“on the street” is a colloquailism - i.e., man on the street - in the real world
Let me be the first to dash your impression of Medicaid in California - it sucks eggs for anything other than a sore throat or scrapped knee. I got up close and personal with it when I was thrown on the Medi-cal roles (along with thousands of others) instead of the Covered California roles where I should have been enrolled. Have you ever been sent 40 miles to practically onto a reservation out in the middle of nowhere to see a specialist with 40 people in his waiting room? yeah. Been there done that. It gives me so much to look forward to when I’m eligible for Calif-run Medicare.
You are WRONG.
Children have had the treatment and are NOT in a vegetative state.
Little Charlie’s mom posted a picture on Twitter of a healthy little girl who had treatment.
And here’s another case:
“..Arturito was diagnosed with a similar mitochondrial depletion syndrome to Charlie and was the first person in the US to receive nucleoside therapy.
Art said he put Charlies parents in contact with the Columbia University Medical Centre in New York..”
“An American father whose son was successfully treated for a similar condition to Charlie Gard says he deserves the opportunity to live.
Art Estopinan was told his son only had two months to live, but four years after being brought home he can now move his hands and feet.
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.