Because he had a fatal disease.
And the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that the Gard family were not allowed to pay for Charlie to be flown to the United States for experimental treatment because it would go against NHS regulations.
The difference between Blue Cross and the American government is that if the Blue Cross doesn’t make deals with the doctor, they have to back off. The American government can have the doctor arrested or, more likely, simply refuse to work with him and put him out of business.
Monopoly is bad,
even especially when the government does it.
…which would not have saved Charlie. But I see your point. You are showing how the British National Health System prevented the parents from “buying” extra services beyond what they were willing to pay for. Two points about that:
- The decision not to allow Charlie to be moved was made based on medical judgment and not on whether the service would be covered.
- Even if the British NHS is an example of government dictating the delivery of health services, their model of single payer health insurance is their own implementation. A single payer system could be constructed without that problem. And since we are talking about the potential for a future single payer system and not about the problems of specific current implementations, this does not prove that all single payer systems are necessarily immoral.
Yes. the NHS was not out a shilling had the Gards been allowed to exercise parental rights.
And the NHS and UK government prevented additional care
Except that it limits individual rights to choose the healthcare they want
Could, but they won’t. Progressives will say that it is unfair that those with means can buy better services,
Speculation based on the realities of what government does, and what progressives do.
It will be part of single payer, as will an abortion mandate, just as they claim public accommodations for things such as gay marriage. Government to the Catholic doctor: "abortion is a right. You will either provide such service or be excluded from all services. "
The difference with doctors and BCBS is that there are other insurance companies. With government single payer sucking up all the healthcare dollars, no competition can exist.
Wrong, isn’t it? But that is not a reflection of those who paid into the TRUST FUND.
And this is what is wrong with your argument: the slander that people who have paid in to the TRUST FUND are somehow greedy to expect that they would receive a return promised, particularly when those who receive real welfare haven’t had to pay anything in.
That doesn’t mean I don’t agree that elimination would be a good thing, as I explained earlier
Socialists, communists, and fascists, but I repeat myself
No, they could still choose the health care they want. They just might have to pay for it themselves.
I’m a progressive and I don’t say that. I see nothing wrong with everyone getting a base level of care paid for and those who can afford it can get more or better care on their own. I don’t think that is unfair.
The thing with the Charlie Guard case is that the court ruled additional treatment would inflict significant suffering on the child without a serious hope of improvement. That’s always been an issue - it’s similar to, say, trying to outlaw certain therapies because they have a track record of harm and little evidence of help (“attachment therapy” is the one I was reading about recently).
That’s going to be a thing no matter what, because it’s about preventing parents from causing their children to suffer pointlessly.
I don’t see why the Supreme Court is allowed to override parents’ decisions on whether or not to attempt an experimental treatment.
There are plenty of examples where the state determines when the parents are not acting in the interests of the child. Sometimes it is decided at a much lower level than the Supreme Court, like Child Protective Services. The argument needs to be made based on the specifics of this case - not based on general principles, because on general principles, the argument falls down. (Try arguing that the state may not, under any circumstances, override the will of the parent and you will see that argument fails.)
These are in cases where there is measurable, objective harm – the child is not being educated or fed or is being regularly beaten.
Seeking experimental treatment in a last-ditch effort is not an objective harm.
Either way, that’s a separate issue from national healthcare, and it’s something that’s going to be an issue no matter what.
The general idea is to prevent parents from actively harming their children with untested treatments - just like the courts can force parents to provide necessary medical treatment, they can prevent parents from applying medical treatment likely to cause serious harm. Whether Charlie Guard was an overstep is definitely a live question - I’m inclined to think it was. It’s just one that’s going to be there no matter how we manage healthcare.
(The Supreme Court thing is because it was in the UK, not in the US, so the system is a bit different. It would be a state issue here.)
It can be if it subjects the child to unreasonable suffering. Your analysis is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.
There is a huge interest in pursuing innovative medical treatments.
The medical and bureaucratic establishment(s) are violently opposed to innovation.
If you want to start a fight, just bring up the idea of using Vitamin E to heal diaper rash.
And that is a trivial application of innovation.
Check out “The Right to Try” which has been officially adopted by many states.
The BUREAUCRATS are adamantly opposed.
So far, 38 states and the Goldwater Institute have pushed to adopt the Right to Try.