Charlie Gard is the Reason to Repeal Obamacare

Charlie Gard is the Reason to Repeal Obamacare

Repealing Obamacare is not about removing mandates; it is not about adjusting required coverages; it is not about expanding Medicaid.  It is about restoring liberty to America.  It is about excising the cancer of socialized medicine, which is in fact terminal to the cause of liberty.

No amount of intellectual gymnastics on the left or right can alter this core reality of what is at stake.  Obamacare was the first material imposition of socialized medicine on America, and the American heartland absolutely hates it.

This is why it is such a travesty that GOP Senators are so tone deaf and inarticulate.

This is a huge part of why Donald Trump was elected President, though even he doesn’t appear to really understand it.

American patriots know what time it is in America.  The ruling class does not.

But rather than attempt a fresh set of words to persuade, it is time to acknowledge the marvel of the so-far free market in news and commentary:  the emergence of newcomers who produce videos which present the monstrous evil that is socialized medicine in as riveting and compelling terms as anyone could possibly do.

We can’t improve on what Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Steven Green have said in their video “Charlie Gard: Enemy of the State“.  Watch it yourself.  Share it.  Demand that your elected Congressmen and Senators watch it.

Demand that Obamacare be repealed, lock, stock and barrel.

Paul Gable

5 Comments
  • T. Taylor
    Posted at 02:32h, 31 July Reply

    I couldn’t watch but the first few minutes of this. It’s disgusting to me that this child’s illness and ciircumstances have been polticized. This was NOT about national health care. This was NOT about putting the parents in their place and making a statement to the rest of England’s population. This was NOT about obamacare. This was about a child who had reached the end of his life and the parents couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make the decision to discontinue life support. That’s it. Nothing more.
    This happens every day here in the US. Courts order for life support to be discontinued, and the medical staff and hospitals must follow the court orders.
    I’ve heard people say that the parents are the ones that should have complete control in what happens to their children. My quesiton is then, so when a child is being sexually assaulted, or physically abused, or starved, or beaten, are you saying that the state should just sit back and let the parents make all of the decisions for the child? This is the exact same thing. The time had come to let Charlie pass away without further pain, without further public gawking, but the parents wouldn’t make that choice, so the court had to.
    The US doctor was approved to go to England to examine Charlie back in January. Why did he not go then? Why isn’t anyone talking about that? Or asking what the family will now do with the money that they have collected? They have only said that they are considering setting up a fund…not that they will.
    The focus is wrong on this. Just wrong. And it isn’t fair to Charlie or his suffering to continue to use him and his case as an ‘example’ of what will happen if we ___________ (fill in the blank). And no, I am completely against obamacare and a national health care system.
    Why don’t you talk to some health care professionals about this? All that I hear are political pundits who have no education or experience with ventilator care, terminial illness, or any other aspect that really matters in Charlie’s care. You should all be ashamed!
    What gives me the right to say these things? I’m a registered respiratory therapist and have been in the field for over 40 years. I’ve taken patient’s off of vents because of court orders. It’s always hard to take a patient off of a vent, no matter the reason, but to see it used as a political platform is disgusting!

    • admin
      Posted at 03:37h, 02 August Reply

      We appreciate the heartfelt nature of your comment. Your 40 years in healthcare have given you an informed perspective, no doubt shaped by what we would presume to be the consistently high caliber of medical professionals in the U.S. with whom you’ve worked.

      We don’t have any reason to question the competence of the UK medical professionals who diagnosed Charlie Gard; we don’t think the “Right Angle” video commentary questioned that either.

      The issue the Charlie Gard case brings into focus is the critical question in any life-or-death healthcare decision: who decides? Your perspective seems to be that because in your view the medical decision was correct, the ‘political’ concern of who decides the question is irrelevant and should be silenced or disregarded as superfluous and unnecessarily unpleasant.

      We don’t agree. The question of who decides is at the core of whether we have an individual freedom-based society or a society controlled by government.

      In an individual freedom-based society, decision-making should start at the individual level, and enlarge as circumstances dictate to those closest to the individual, usually family members. They enlist the assistance of whatever healthcare professionals they believe to be helpful, and they decide, often with an insurer as part of the picture, whether and to what extent financial considerations will shape their decisions.

      But the point at which a government administrator of a socialized healthcare system is introduced into the decision-making process, the loss of individual freedom to decide, in our view, is very much a ‘deal-breaker’ factor against socialized medicine. It doesn’t matter who the administrator is—he or she may be the kindest, gentlest soul around (or may be a fine group of administrators)—but his or her decision is driven by costs and by the need for efficiency and equity in a collective and not individual sense.

      When—as was the case with Charlie Gard—the parents have secured the financial resources to pursue a treatment they believe might help their child, such that the healthcare system will not be financially burdened with those costs, and the parents are nevertheless prohibited from doing so by a government administrator, that drives a stake in the heart of individual freedom, or in this case, the freedom of the Gard family.

      Most people instinctively understand and rebel at the imposition on freedom that such an action represents. From this perspective, it is the medical decision, whether correct or not, that is irrelevant and superfluous. It’s the freedom to decide that matters.

      Yes, it is true that American society has accepted the concept that Child Protective Services in various forms can exercise government power over the fate of children, too. We don’t find that argument persuasive in the Charlie Gard context for two main reasons.

      First, it’s too much of a stretch in our view to equate a CPS removal of a child based on (for example) a finding of parent(s) inflicting physical beatings on that child, with a decision to pull the plug on an infant profoundly loved and cherished by his parents.

      Second, and just as important, CPS’ record of achieving good results for children is not at all confidence-inspiring. That’s not to put down CPS personnel; they work very hard to do the best they can in very difficult situations. But the empirical reality is that their results do not support the idea of spreading government authority over MORE family decisions; they argue for less.

      Thanks again for your comment. Your perspective is honest and legitimate. We may just have to agree to disagree on the relevance of Charlie Gard’s case to the big picture question of individual freedom vs. socialized medicine.

      Paul Gable

      • T. Taylor
        Posted at 08:12h, 04 August Reply

        Thank you for your response.
        I’m not trying to silence anything. I think that dialog is always important.
        This isn’t about healthcare in the UK or here in the US. I’ve talked with UK nurses about this and their perspective is exactly like mine. This isn’t about the govt. making decisions for end of life care or the govt. would make EVERY decsion about end of life care. This was about one child, Charlie Gard.
        I posted some questions that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer. And I’ll add a couple:
        What do you say about the court orders when that happens here in the US? Is there a point where the courts should intervene on behalf of the patient? When is that? If not, why not and what should happen to those patients?
        Have you read about the disease that Charlie had? I take it, no. This is a degenerative disease that affects the muscles and then the brain. It is non-recoverable. Non- treatable. Non-curable. There have only been about 15 cases of this form of MDD and none have, or could have, survived. It’s based in the DNA. It’s hereditary, but may take different forms (parental guilt??) . Once it reaches the point that the brain is affected, once a ventilator is in place, there is nothing more that can be done. If there was, then the US doctor (who had a financial interest in his ‘treatment’) would have gone in Jan. He didn’t. Charlie had begun to have serious, repetative seizures. Should this just be allowed to continue? Medications weren’t working to stop the seizures because they were a result of degeneration of the brain, not something that would respond to medications.
        The parents had complete control over his care until it reached a point that these, and other symptoms, had become the focus of care. The doctors AND an advocate for Charlie, all suggested that the ventilator be removed, but the parents wouldn’t allow it. They knew it was terminal. They saw the seizures. What parent is so selfish that they would want their infant to exist like that? Was it about the money? Was it about the publiciity? Was it REALLY about helping Charlie get help?? Because they knew that there was no help for him. What should have been allowed to happen? Just let Charlie keep going through this until he rotted on the ventilator? Really? You do know that the parents have now said that they ‘may’ set up a non-profit with all of that money, but probably not. Hmmmm………
        Maybe this is politics to you, but I see an infant who had a terminal disease, that possibly was suffering (at least from the seizures), and the parents just allowed it. To me, that’s abuse and very much like the other examples that I expressed.
        I’m a staunch Constitutional Conservative, so of course I don’t think that single payer healthcare is right for the US. Of course I hate obamacare. I believe in our freedoms, in the right for us to make our own decisons and those for whom we care, whether children, the elderly, or incapacitated at any age. But this wasn’t about any of that no matter how you choose to try and make it. See, sometimes for whatever reason, the families or caregivers simply cannot let go. They cannot, or will not, make that decision. So the medical staff must. And sometimes, for the sake of the patient, the courts intervene.
        Oh, and I’m not advocating on behalf of CPS! I’ve seen the result of some of that, personally and professionally. But I AM saying that there are times when there is abuse and the ‘govt’ needs to step in, whether in the form of the police, CPS, the courts, or a combination.
        Please…talk to another medical person about this and listen to their perspective. Listen to them talk about patient’s families who hang on far too long, or patients who are on vents that literally rot from the inside, or how horrible it is to see an infant have grand mal seizures. Better than that, go to an ICU and see it for yourself. Smell it for yourself. Watch it for yourself.
        The thing that bothers me about politicizing this is that Charlie doesn’t have a voice to ask people to stop it. He can’t say (couldn’t say) ‘I’m a baby who is very ill, who is dying, who needs help to do that, so please, don’t make this about politics. Make this about me and other children who are sick and need a voic.e..’ So I, and other medical professionals, will say it for him.
        If you’re going to use Charlie’s case to support an agenda, at least look at the whole story. Look at the whole medical history, the disease, the plethera of court hearings and those decisions, the advice of the medical staff, and why. Look at all of it instead of picking and choosing what you want to focus on to make it fit into your box..
        We can certainly agree to disagree, but that won’t change the facts. II’m not here to argue. I just want you to look at all of it and be fair. I don’t think that you’re doing that. Isn’t that what liberals do? Pick and choose? We’re better than that! (or should be)
        Again, thank you for your time.

        • admin
          Posted at 03:31h, 07 August Reply

          Thanks for your further comments. They highlight how difficult these issues are, and how honest, intelligent and caring people can see things differently.

          Again, we don’t question the accuracy of the medical diagnosis; the additional details you’ve supplied certainly add to the picture of incurability for Charlie Gard. We don’t question those details; and we don’t in any way fault the individual medical professionals involved in the specifics of his case. If they or, by extension, other professionals like you who were not involved in the Gard case, are feeling somehow personally or morally maligned by the policy debates that have followed the publicity surrounding the case, that is unfortunate and unfair.

          But a deep dive into the specifics of Charlie Gard’s illness is not what matters most to the larger question of ‘who decides?’
          Charlie Gard is one case, and from your perspective, the facts of his disease and the interaction with the medical professionals are so overwhelming in favor of pulling the plug that you feel his case should not be included in any discussion of the broader policy questions relating to socialized medicine. Maybe you’re right.

          But as you would know, there are tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of cases every year. Some percentage of them are at the ‘zero hope’ end of the spectrum; most are somewhere else. Some have family members or other caretakers who may be unreasonably stubborn and/or ignorant relative to accepting medical diagnoses; most are not. There is a nearly infinite variety of facts and circumstances in individual cases. But the core question of who decides hovers over every case, and socialized medicine inevitably inserts technocrats, ‘budget’-crats and general bureaucrats in the role of decision-makers—not just caring medical professionals.

          Intelligence shaped by experience tells us that is a liberty-killing, soul-sapping approach that severely harms the cause of liberty for all Americans.

          There may be nearly unanimous agreement among knowledgeable medical people that pulling the plug on Charlie Gard was in no way a medical mistake. But in our view, it would be a serious mistake if a focus on the specific facts of his case is used to dismiss or diminish debate on the wisdom of socialized medicine.

          Paul Gable

  • T. Taylor
    Posted at 22:24h, 08 August Reply

    Thank you, again.
    I understand the need for us to make sure that govt. doesn’t run our healthcare. Any of it. I understand the need to assure that end of life decisions are made by the patient, the family, and those closest to the patient. I get all of that. So… let me ask you… even here in the US, when you have a patient that is at, or beyond, ‘end of life’, and they are being kept ‘alive’ on a vent, the family can’t/won’t make that decision, what do you think should be done? How should these situations be handled? Should they just stay on the vent indefinitely? Who should make that decision in these cases? It happens more frequently than you might think. I really would like to hear your perspective on this, because this seems to be the very question at the heart of the conversation.
    I don’t debate that this discussion needs to be held. I am disappointed that it’s happening over the illness and death of an innocent child who has no voice in the matter. I am disappointed that it’s being held without the medical considerations that you want to put on a shelf, when those considerations are the very reason for the debate.
    Have the conversation! But have it over fictional circumstances, fictional patients, and hash out the very real details that can, and do, emerge in these types of cases. But, please, leave little Charlie out of it! He didn’t ask for the disease and he certainly didn’t ask to be put on an international stage to die an undignified, glorified, politicized death. To me, that’s just disgusting!

Post A Comment