The ‘inevitable consequence’ of socialized healthcare

Letter to the Editor

Posted 7/26/17

The story of Charlie Gard, a medically frail baby in England is the latest of many perfect examples of why we don’t need single payer healthcare liberals are trying to encumber on we the people.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

The ‘inevitable consequence’ of socialized healthcare

Letter to the Editor

Posted

Editor:
The story of Charlie Gard, a medically frail baby in England is the latest of many perfect examples of why we don’t need single payer healthcare liberals are trying to encumber on we the people.  U.K. Socialized medicine gives the hospital the right to terminate anyone one’s life because care costs too much.
Charlie suffers from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a very rare disorder often fatal. Charlie’s is severe enough he currently can’t survive without life support. Because the disease is so rare, very few medical facilities are equipped with the advanced procedures necessary for treatment. That is why the hospital caring for Charlie filed a lawsuit to be allowed to take Charlie off of life without the parents’ consent. Because the state is paying for care, the doctors were able to argue that the cost of life support for an untreatable child was not worthwhile.

His parents were able to get a stay on the court order and Charlie will be kept alive until a new ruling.  Through donations from throughout the world of roughly $1.6 million, more than enough to pay for specialized private care in another country. Hospitals in the U.S. and the Vatican have expressed willingness to take Charlie into their care. This negates the doctors’ financial argument used to get their kill order, but the courts so far still side with the British hospital.  The parents are legally forbidden to take Charlie to another hospital even though they’re paying out of pocket. A specialist from Columbia Medical is scheduled to appeal the case to the High Court in a few days.
No government should ever have final say on which patients are allowed to live or die. It’s an insane premise, and most of the world agrees the British government is wrong. Despite that, the situation is an inevitable consequence of socialized healthcare. Single-payer systems give more power to government because they eliminate any economic power held by its citizens. Without private options, citizens are legally barred from pursuing their own best interests and are subject to the whims of unelected government bureaucrats.
You say it can’t happen here? Several years ago a friend of mine had cancerous polyps removed from his head for a $20 co pay. Three years later the same procedure cost him $1,500 because he was over 75. At least he received care because he could pay. Could you?


Paul E. Puebla
Torrington