Charlie Gard; the Fundamental Divide

The Charlie Gard affair became quite a divisive thing. (But also brought some people together, like Senator Cruz, President Trump, and Pope Francis, a trio that seems rather unlikely, but who all agreed here.) Particularly between the American Right to Life movement and some of our friends. One of the people in Britain whom I respect a good deal is Melanie Phillips, I’ve read and listened to her for years, and she is a spokesman for common sense and yes conservatism. But on this issue something strange happened. Watch.

The problem is fundamental, in our view of who owns a baby. Let’s let Lady Penguin of Unified Patriots spell it out.

Recently, William McGurn of the WSJ, wrote a thoughtful and compassionate article regarding the situation of Charlie Gard. WSJ has a paywall, here is another source:
I agreed 100% with Mr. McGurn’s perspective, and had some additional thoughts/perspective to add regarding this tragic story.

Let’s go back to 1930’s Germany. Hitler went through the hospitals and killed the old, the sick, the infirm, and the disabled. Family and friends of loved ones who they expected to return home or at least be cared for in the health institutions of that era, never saw them again. Essentially, the “undesirables” of society ended up as part of the millions killed in the Holocaust. Too few people study Germany and the changes in her cultural institutions before World War II, but that’s critical to ultimately understanding the onset of that war. Germany had to be groomed by Hitler in the 1930’s to pave the way for his plans of taking over Europe and initiating/completing his “Final Solution.” Those plans included not only Jews, but the weak, disabled, elderly and his political opponents.

Charlie Gard’s story gives us a glimpse of this same pathway. Britain’s National Health Service has been set up to “own” the individual – whether child or adult. When Charlie was born and had to be placed in neonatal intensive care, the NHS terminated the parental rights of Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard. The parents have spent precious months fighting for the right to take the baby out of the NHS and come to America where a physician was willing to try an experimental treatment. In baby Charlie’s case, it wasn’t even about money because the parents had independently raised the necessary funds, but it is/was about who has the RIGHT to determine what was best for Charlie.

The parents wanted to try anything possible to save his life – the State decided nothing was possible and took all control of Charlie away from Connie and Chris. This is what happens in a State controlled health service. The parents appealed to the European Union’s High Court, and the decision of the UK Court AND the National Health Service was upheld. Considering what is happening in the Netherlands – their open and almost gleeful embrace of euthanasia, assisted suicide – the EU Court siding with Britain’s NHS is no surprise. Read another WSJ article, “In the Netherlands, the Doctor Will Kill You Now” by Kees van der Staaij.

And that is what set us off, the presumption by the State, for the NHS is nothing but an arm of the state, that it owned little Charlie and that his parents should sit down and shut up, because he was too far gone to live. Probably by the time we got involved he actually was, but that is because the NHS stalled since January. Was that true then? I don’t know, but it’s a troubling question. And that is also why, when the parents said enough is enough, it’s too late, we all simply offered our sympathy, it was their call, with medical advice they trusted, to make. Not the hospital’s cost driven choice. That the hospital felt the need to continue abusing them is unfortunate but unsurprising.  It strikes many of us as a return to pre-Christian paganism, where unwanted children were simply left to die of exposure. Same thing, but hidden in buildings, and by unformed consciences.

And, if we are honest, for whatever cause, that is the difference between America and Europe, including the UK. Americans are, by training and instinct, distrustful of, and suspicious of, anything connected with the government, with overwhelming cause, going back to not only George III, but to the Stuarts, whose views on religion caused a good many of our founders, the Dissenters, to come here, to found that “cittie on the hille” that has come to symbolize so much of America to the world. Only an American would have said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” And I suspect only Americans understand just how terrifying those words can and should, be.

Daily, thousands of life and death decisions are made in a family regarding life support issues for a loved one. It’s made between the physician, family members, and the patients themselves if they are able to participate. I don’t need to go into the medical details of these types of situations; suffice it to say, it happens, but it is in the hands of the patient, family and physician. Not the State.

The Affordable Care Act had a hidden nugget, outed by Sarah Palin, known as “Death Panels.” This is a fact, and as long as the ACA remains on the books, a non-medical bureaucrat is going to make a decision on whether one gets treatment and lives or gets a pill for pain, and simply dies. Barack Obama once gave the ludicrous example of a 90 year old woman needing a pacemaker…a woman who was alert, functioning and enjoying life, he said maybe they “should just give her a pill (not sure if it was ‘red’ or ‘blue’) for pain instead of a pacemaker…” I’m in the medical field, pacemakers are an everyday, reasonable option. Millions of people have them – rare for a person not to be able to get one. But in Obama’s worldview, and others who think like him, a 90 year grandmother has no meaning or relevancy to society. That’s where he is not only wrong, but it shows the moral decline of a society. It’s our humanity and respect for life – imperfect as it is – which keeps us on a moral path. Once we lose that compass, we lose everything else.

And that is why, beyond our moral revulsion at the actions of the NHS, which is very real, the whole issue is very important to Americans. And there is this.

The Charlie Gards of the world are important, just as the Down Syndrome infants are, or the disabled or the elderly – it keeps our humanity, our Soul. If we deliberately kill – when alternative resources or experimental treatments are available, we’re on our way to the same kind of thinking and mindset which engulfed the Third Reich. No difference.

Update: I want to add two perceptive remarks from the comment thread.

1) Kenny Solomon used the phrase: “genocidal theocracy” – which brings to mind the abortion industry and their rabid supporters.

2) Vassar Bushmills noted: “Never forget, that murder by indifference is the greatest sin before God.

Emphasis mine and a huge tip of the Stetson to PUMABydesign001.

Advertisements

Good bye and Farewell, Charlie

Well, I said this a while ago, too much time was wasted for Charlie Gard to survive his illness. The NHS has run out the clock, to the point where his parents have made the decision that they must let go. His dad, Chris Gard made a heartbreaking statement:

“Firstly, I would like to thank our legal team who have worked tirelessly on our behalf for free. And to the nurses and staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital who have cared for Charlie and kept him comfortable and stable for so long.

We would also like to thank everybody who supported us, including all the people here for us today.

This is one of the hardest things that we will ever have to say and we are about to do the hardest thing that we’ll ever have to do, which is to let our beautiful little Charlie go.

Put simply, this is about a sweet, gorgeous innocent little boy who was born with a rare disease who had a real genuine chance at life and a family who loved him so very dearly. And that’s why we fought so hard for him.

We are truly devastated to say that following the most recent MRI scan of Charlie’s muscles as requested in a recent MDT meeting by Dr Hirano.

As Charlie’s devoted and loving parents, we’ve decided that it is no longer in Charlie’s best interest to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels.

The American and Italian team were still willing to treat Charlie after seeing his recent MRI and EEG perform last week, but there is one simple reason why treatment cannot now go ahead and that is time. A whole lot of time has been wasted.

We are now in July and our poor boy has been left to just lie in hospital for months without any treatment whilst lengthy court battles have been fought.

Tragically having had Charlie’s medical notes reviewed by independent experts, we now know had Charlie been given the treatment sooner, he would have had the potential to be a normal healthy little boy.

Despite his condition in January, Charlie’s muscles were in pretty good shape and far from showing irreversible catastrophic structural brain damage.

Dr Hirano and other experts say his brain scans and EEGs were those of a relatively normal child of his age.

We knew that ourselves because as his parents, we knew our son, which is why we continued fighting.

Charlie’s been left for his illness to deteriorate devastatingly to the point of no return.

This has also never been about ‘parents know best’.

All we wanted to do was take Charlie from one world-renowned hospital to another world-renowned hospital in the attempt to save his life and to be treated by the world leader in mitochondrial disease.

We’ll have to live with the what-ifs which will haunt us for the rest of our lives.

Despite the way that our beautiful son has been spoken about sometimes, as if he is not worthy of a chance at life, our son is an absolute warrior and we could not be prouder of him and we will miss him terribly.

His body, heart and soul may soon be gone, but his spirit will live on for eternity and he will make a difference to people’s lives for years to come. We will make sure of that.

We are now going to spend our last precious moments with our son Charlie who unfortunately won’t make his first birthday in just under two weeks’ time.

And we will ask that our privacy is respected during this very difficult time.

To Charlie we say mummy and daddy, we love you so much. We always have and we always will and we are so sorry we couldn’t save you.

Sweet dreams baby, sleep tight our beautiful little boy. We love you.”

Courtesy of The Independent

Given what we know, while this has to be a heartbreaking decision for Charlie’s parents, I’m quite sure that it is also the correct one. God give them strength.

Well, we all did our best, and we have lost a battle, there will be more, and we need to move faster. We too were late to his aid, and the dilatory nature of the NHS, along with its near-religious status in the UK, and it’s stubborn clinging to power made this an uphill battle. And that is the real lesson here, and it’s important to remember even as we mourn that little warrior in London. If we don’t fight it all the time, every time, the culture of death that the NHS represents will win. But we, British and Americans, with an assist from the Pope, came close. If we had been even three months earlier, we might have prevailed.

And that is what I simply cannot understand, the religious fervor of the Brits for this Stalinist health (non)care system. No matter what you say about it, your answer will be, “But it’s free.” Which it decidedly is not. Nor is this anything new. Back in 2013 Jessica and I both wrote about the Stafford scandal in which something up to 1200 patients were allowed to live in filth and die unattended. Those articles are here, and here. They were based on an article in The Telegraph, which is here. So what happened? Nothing, of course, the latest story in Google is from February of 2013, three days after our articles were published.

Nothing will change because of Charlie Gard either. Why? Because while Americans were outraged over the whole thing of stealing this baby from his parents and allowing him to die, the British for the most part shrugged and said, “It’s free.” Maybe they haven’t heard it ain’t free they pay at least $1500 each per year for this shoddy simulacrum of health care.

As I said then, “That’s the thing about government bureaucracies though, no one is responsible.” That’s often the point of a bureaucracy, as we have surely seen in the last few years. Jeff Weimer commenting on this story yesterday at Ace‘s said this:

Once again, socialized medicine gets the preferred health outcome it was looking for.

You are not – I repeat – you are *not* the customer in a socialized single payer system. You are a *cost*. the government is the customer and it gets what it pays for.

Always.

And that is the simple truth. So is this from the same comment stream:

For me, nothing has been so infuriating in all this as reading feedback from the British public. Usually, the comments section at sites like Daily Mail is fairly right-leaning, but even there, when it came to poor Charlie, the parents were being absolutely excoriated for fighting the hospital, which apparently, in the eyes of their fellow Brits, is run by the most intelligent, compassionate people on Earth. Charlie’s parents, it was said over and over again, ought to “do the right thing” and let their son die already.

I shouldn’t blame them too much. It is only too clear that this attitude is the result of decades under a welfare state and the mind-warping that induces. But it is hard to come away with any conclusion except that the UK is now home to millions of soulless automatons who would rather the innocent perish than lose their own entitlements. Damn them all.

Goodbye, Charlie, we tried our best, and we failed. May God help your parents find some peace.

All three of you will be in many prayers.

 

Charlie Gard, Green Cards, Right to Life, and Ownership

Sometimes a story just reaches out and grabs you, and won’t let go. For me, Charlie Gard is that story. I’m convinced that eventually, the NHS will kill him, it’s not like it will be novel for them or anything. But in the meantime, I, like so many others, including the US Congress, the President of the United States, The US Right to Life movement, The British Right to Life movement, most Christians, and the Pope, one does what one can.

The biggest problem, I suspect is that the NHS when it made it the cold conclusion that this child must die, assumed that his parents were simply sheeple that would do what they were told to do. Well, they’re not, they are thinking, feeling people, who love their son, and are willing to fight all comers for what they think is right for him. They may be wrong in their assessment. They assuredly are not wrong in their determination. I and many others honor them for it.

In any case, this happened.

Does it matter that Charlie and his parents are now legal residents of the United States? Probably not really. That’s what this is, it is the coveted American Green Card, awarded by special act of the US Congress, carrying with it all the rights guaranteed an American, including the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It’s the right thing to do, but probably non-effectual. There is only one more thing Congress could do, declare Charlie an honorary citizen of the United States. In this context, it has been done only once, to attempt to prevent the Soviets from killing Raoul Wallenberg. He was so designated because of his work in saving tens of thousands of Jews from the Nazis in Budapest as the Swedish Special Envoy. Apparently, he was killed at the Lubyanka in 1947.

What we have here is simply a pissing match, the NHS, and the British and European courts vs the decent people of the world. The NHS will likely win the match, but they have done themselves much damage, in their cold, unblinking desire to kill this baby, no matter what anybody thinks.

For a good many American readers, I suspect they have also killed Obamacare for good, if the Congress can’t get its thumb out, then Congress will change. I think we’ve had enough, and enough of us remember Sarah Palin’s remarks on ‘Death Panels’ to recognize one when we see one. And we don’t like what we see.

The American doctor has examined Charlie, and thinks improvement may be possible, and so argued, for five hours in concert with the doctor from the Vatican’s Childrens’ Hospital. The NHS was reportedly unmoved.

Ted Noel, MD writing at American Thinker has done the best job of explaining the difference between the systems in play here.

[…]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.  So Charlie was swallowed by the Blob.

Thus far, there didn’t seem to be any difference between single-payer and private insurance.  Both start with the same level of medical care. But shortly, the differences became manifest.  When Charlie’s rare diagnosis became clear (only 16 known cases), the NHS refused to allow any sort of alternative approach.  Charlie had struck the iceberg, and the Carpathia was nowhere to be seen.

After first contact with a doctor who might be able to help, Charlie’s parents set up a crowdfunding page and raised £1.3 million (about $1.7 million).  That’s enough for any conceivable therapy.  They had become financially able to relieve the NHS of any need to care for Charlie.  All the NHS had to do was say, “Yes.”  Instead, the NHS asserted its ownership of Charlie, and multiple courts agreed.  The hospital got court orders to discontinue life support.

What would have happened in the U.S.?  When there is no reasonable probability of returning a critically ill patient to meaningful life, the situation is to be presented to the patient’s health care surrogate.  This “Legally Authorized Person” is encouraged to recognize that further care is futile and should not be undertaken.  With the LAP’s consent, it would become possible to withdraw futile care.

It is critically important to note that the LAP (typically close family) has the authority to tell the medical staff to continue care or not.  It is not up to the doctors or the hospital.  It does not matter that continuing futile care burns out staff and consumes resources.  The family is the final authority, because the family members are the ones who own all rights in this situation.  It would be unethical to proceed without their consent, because they are protecting the patient’s natural human rights, even if they conflict with the medical prognosis.

I know that speaking in terms of “ownership” sounds strange coming from a doctor.  But this is the key fact, based in natural law.  Charlie Gard’s parents “own” him.  They begot him.  They cared for him.  And when he became ill, they cared even more for him by seeking expert assistance.  They are primarily responsible for Charlie.  But single-payer NHS changes everything.

When Charlie Gard came through that Emergency Department door, the NHS took ownership of him.  It’s a classic case of the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules.”  (Apologies to Saint Matthew.)  In essence, the NHS said that since it is paying the freight, Charlie is now the property of the State.  His parents were involuntarily dispossessed of their son.  The NHS stole him by force of law.  Parental rights inherent in natural law were “stripped away by strangers.”

That’s all of it that I can give you (and probably more than I should, sorry Dr. Noel) but this is important stuff, so read the entire article.

You know, a long time ago, a dead white guy, a Greek, wrote an oath that supposedly doctors still abide by. His name was Hippocrates. In it, he stated that above all,

“First, do no harm”

Government Medicine Is Politicized Medicine | Power Line

The Hollow Men 5In case you were wondering why I tend to cover the British NHS, it’s because it is a somewhat smaller scale Obamacare (or as some are calling it now: 404Care). It’s a second wave, industrial, some (including me) would call it Stalinist, plan which forces one size fits all sameness on a diverse population. As we’ve been seeing in the last week, you are likely to be looking at premiums well in the teens of thousands of dollars with deductibles in the high four figures.

So it will be slow, unresponsive, expensive and tending to default to no care. Lucky us.

Here’s John Hinderaker with some thought on how politicized it will be as well. If anything, he understates it.

News coverage of the rollout of the Obamacare exchanges was dominated by technical issues that were embarrassing to the administration. As Steve wrote this morning, these are not mere glitches but reflect the hubris inherent in the idea that government can effectively run something as vast and diverse as America’s health care system.

But there is, in my view, an even more fundamental objection to government control over health care: anything run by the government inherently becomes political. The result is that the interests of politicians take precedence over everything else. For a case in point, see the United Kingdom. Over the last year or more, we have covered the unfolding scandal of Britain’s National Health Service, where appallingly bad care–not just inept, but callous–has led to many fatalities and has shaken Britons’ faith in the NHS.

Now, in a blockbuster news story, it has come out that the Labour government tried, with some success, to cover up the tragic failings of the NHS to serve its own political interests. The Telegraph has the story:

Continue reading Government Medicine Is Politicized Medicine | Power Line.

How the welfare state undermines altruism | Melanie Phillips

NHSThis very interesting (and I’m pretty sure she is right) article is from Melanie Phillips and was first published in the UK Daily Mail on 7 January 2013. It comes to us via Oyia Brown.

She’s fairly obviously talking about the recent (horrific) problems in the British NHS but, don’t let that stop you from reading and thinking about this. We all know that the NHS is the model (unsaid but known anyway) for Obamacare, and so this is like a look at the not very distant future of American Healthcare.

But let’s take this a bit further than is usually done. It’s valid reasoning to take information from the specific and apply it to analogous general situations, and human nature is pretty much cast in stone, unless we suddenly discover the ‘New Soviet Man‘ that the Russians spent all those years trying to create.

That ain’t gonna happen

So, am I the only one who sees a lot of the problems in the American welfare programs (and there are a lot of them) excellently limned in this look at what healthcare in Britain has become?

In my opinion, if we don’t start turning these monstrosities around, the Luddites are going to get their fondest wish: to make our lives again:

Nasty, Brutish, and Short.

More than five years ago, the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly, identified at first only as Baby P, shocked the nation.

The child had suffered more than 50 injuries over an eight-month period at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and his brother, all of whom were jailed for causing or allowing the death of a child.

What so appalled people was not just the cruelty of these three but the neglect and incompetence of the social workers, health officials and police officers in Haringey, North London, who, despite seeing the child on some 60 occasions, had nevertheless left him to his terrible fate.

The Director of Haringey children’s services, Sharon Shoesmith, was sacked — although subsequently the Court of Appeal held that she had been unfairly dismissed. In a rare interview, she has now said she contemplated suicide in the wake of the controversy and is living on benefits because she is unemployable.

Such remarks will strike many as self-serving, turning herself into the victim, rather than the child her department so catastrophically abandoned. However, although her absence of contrition continues to jar, she makes a fair point that, while she was vilified, no one in the NHS or police lost their job over the way they, in turn, failed Baby P.

But this is all-too common in welfare services. Scandal follows scandal — and  yet hardly anyone ever seems to be held  to account.

Another example occurred at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, where over three years from 2005 between 400 and 1,200 patients died needlessly as managers ruthlessly cut costs — particularly nursing numbers — to meet targets the Labour government laid down to win ‘foundation’ hospital status.

Doctors were diverted from critically-ill patients in order to deal with less serious cases to meet the target of discharging all patients from Accident & Emergency units within four hours of admission.

Vulnerable patients were left starving, in soiled bedsheets or screaming in pain. Some became so dehydrated they drank from flower vases. And those nurses who tried to protest were threatened by others.

According to accounts leaked at the weekend, the report on the scandal by Robert Francis QC due out this week will call for an overhaul of regulations to ensure poor managers are weeded out, and better training for nurses and healthcare assistants.

Apparently, the report will damn not just the Mid-Staffordshire management but a ‘culture of fear’ from Whitehall down to the wards, as managers became fixated on meeting targets and protecting ministers from political criticism.

Countless families in Mid-Staffordshire have been left grieving for loved ones who were, in effect, killed by the National Health Service. Justice surely required sackings going right to the top and maybe even criminal prosecutions.

Yet astoundingly hardly any of the executives who presided over the scandal was disciplined. The hospital’s director of nursing was suspended from the nursing register and then chose to retire.

Complaints about 41 doctors and at least 29 further nurses were sent to their professional bodies, yet none has been struck off.

More jaw-droppingly, others — including Martin Yeates, the Trust’s former chief executive, who refused to give evidence to the inquiry on medical grounds — have subsequently been appointed to other senior positions in the health sector.

Cynthia Bower was chief executive of West Midlands strategic health authority, whose year-long inquiry into the Mid-Staffordshire Trust wrongly rejected its alarmingly high death rates as a statistical error.

Yet one month after this report was produced, she was promoted to run the Care Quality Commission, the health and social care regulator — only to resign last February after severe criticism of the Commission’s failure to police hospitals and care homes. Well, there’s a surprise.

Most astonishing of all, Sir David Nicholson, who ran the health authority responsible for supervising Mid-Staffordshire from August 2005 to April 2006, went on to become the chief executive of the NHS.

He was recently appointed to run the NHS Commissioning Board, the key new body created to oversee GP services.

Sir David blithely dismissed the Mid-Staffordshire scandal as a one-off problem rather than a symptom of systemic NHS failings. His position is now surely untenable.

But how could he and others responsible for this scandal ever have gone on to top NHS jobs? This is surely not so much a National Health Service as a national madhouse.

The short answer is that state-run services invariably put managers first and the public last — because as passive recipients of the Welfare State, the public have no leverage over it.

Continue reading How the welfare state undermines altruism | Melanie Phillips.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results,

What’s different here?

Health Care: Stafford and Obamacare

NHSDid you read the link to Jessica’s on the Stafford Scandal. If not, why not? I guarantee that you have nothing more important to do if you, or anybody you know or love is planning on getting old.

I’m going to give you a couple of paragraphs from that story without you having to click through. Here’s one

It is officially calculated that, between 2005 and 2009, up to 1,200 patients at Stafford Hospital died needlessly. Let us imagine that a comparable disaster occurred in any other institution or enterprise in this country. Suppose that hundreds of customers of the cold food counter at Sainsbury’s or Tesco died of food poisoning. Suppose that, at an army barracks, large comprehensive, steelworks, bank, hotel, university campus or holiday theme park, people died, and went on dying for years, at rates that hugely exceeded anything that could be attributed to the normal course of nature.

And this

 But if you go back to Mr Francis’s first report, in 2010, you are sharply reminded of exactly what all this is about. It has 13 pages on “continence and bladder and bowel care” alone. These include stories about an old man forced to stay on a commode for 55 minutes wearing only a pyjama top, about a woman whose legs were “red raw” because of the effect of her uncleaned faeces, about piles of soiled sheets left at the end of beds, and of bowls full of vomit ditto. A woman arrived at 10am to find her 96-year-old mother-in-law “completely naked… and covered with faeces… It was in her hair, her nails, her hands and on all the cot sides… it was literally everywhere and it was dried.” One nice bureaucratic touch: another woman who found her mother with faeces under her nails asked for them to be cut, but was told that it was “not in the nurses’ remit to cut patients’ nails”.

I can’t speak for you but, if I ever found somebody I cared about (or didn’t care about for that matter) in that condition in an American hospital or nursing home, I’d be taking the place apart, so would you, I bet. Why? We just don’t treat our elders like that. And if we got this response from the management of the place.

Great is the rejoicing among the managerialists this week. Now they can get on with producing charts and implementation plans and meetings about Mr Francis’s five tasks, which recommend “transparency, candour… compassionate nursing… patient-centred health care leadership… accurate, regularly available information” and all the other things to which the NHS is always formally committed but never actually achieves.

How happily they have taken up Mr Francis’s insistence that there should be no “scapegoats”. But a scapegoat, remember, is a person made to bear the blame for others. It is clear from Mr Francis’s findings that the blame rested on many people, unnamed, at every level. How great does a crime or cruelty in the NHS have to be before the public can be allowed to know who committed it?

And that, my friends, is pure and undiluted Bullcrap, expressed in the Queen’s English. You and I know that every bloody one of these people need to be brought up on criminal neglect charges and a good many of them probably on manslaughter charges as well.

That’s the thing about government bureaucracies though, no one is responsible-we just saw in Benghazi as well didn’t we. Same thing, pointing fingers all the way around the circles, fixing not a damn thing and along we go.

This is exactly what Obamacare is bringing us. health care worse than the worst hell-hole in Africa at a price we can’t afford.

American health care (the old model) had its problems, mostly to do with the trial lawyers (who own a lot of the Democratic Party) and everything being third party payor, if we had stayed with paying at least our GP out of pocket, we’d have had (much) less problem. You and I know that when we pay for something out of our own pocket, we make sure we get our money’s worth, when we’re spending OPM (Other peoples money) we just don’t care, any of us.

And just in general, as an American, I’ve of course had no close contact with the NHS, Jess on the other hand is a Brit. I was flabbergasted, and more than a little shocked last fall when a college boy knocked her over, breaking her wrist in the process. First I’m disheartened at a society that seems to think it’s normal to knock people over and keep going, which is not encouraging, but what really shocked me was that it took her about 6 hours, replete with threats from on high to get a correct diagnoses. What if she hadn’t had friends to help, would it have ever gotten set correctly. My point is that this is most emphatically not about the elderly, exclusively, it’s about all of us.

Leviathan off the rails and run amuck, we need to get it stopped before it gets any more of a head of steam.

As always:

When Everybody is Responsible: Nobody is Responsible

We’ll talk more about this soon.

%d bloggers like this: