Charlie Gard

Good friend of mine posts, “Have you heard of Charlie Gard”?

I reply, “Yes. Very sad story. A story of a death panel.”

Another person jumps in and derides the response:

Yes. Poor baby. No cure for his horrible genetic disease. It’s best to let him die peacefully.
In this country, he could very well become a ward a the state and the same decision be made on his behalf. So stop already about death panels. What the Republicans are proposing is death panels at the hands of insurance companies CEOs.

Remember when Mrs. Palin said she didn’t want some death panel deciding whether her son lives or dies? (Trig was born with a genetic condition as well … who gets to decide whether his quality of life is sufficient to fight for?) she was derided and laughed at. Oh, that dumb hick! (how non-judgmental and tolerant!). The words “death panel” do not appear anywhere in the document! Ha ha! Ho ho! (Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon … where did I read that? Hmmm).

They spent a LOT of energy on that one.

That would never happen, they said. You’re just fear-mongering. LIES!

So in one of their most vaunted examples of Medical Utopia™, exactly what Mrs. Palin was talking about actually happens, the response is “stop talking about it”. “Shut Up!”

As Mr. Klavan pointed out years ago, “Shut Up” is typically the central thesis of their argument when anyone argues back.

They have lots of different ways of saying “shut up”, though in this case, one of the commenters here basically just came out and said it point blank.

But racist, sexist, intolerant, whatever-o-phobe, ignorant, hick … my experts are smarter than yours, yours are just greedy money-grubbers at best.

These are all different things they use to say “shut up”.

And through it all, it was almost lost that what they’re really exposing here — when you read between the lines– is not so much that they thought Mrs. Palin was wrong. No.

It’s that they were OK with the death panels from the beginning.

Loading Likes...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by .

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

7 thoughts on “Charlie Gard

  1. Severian

    Ah yes, “insurance company CEOs.” Here’s what I’d like to know:

    Why is “GS-8 bureaucrat” better than “insurance company CEO” when it comes to pulling the plug?

    You’ve got incurable cancer. You’ve got six months to live with the most expensive, aggressive, bleeding-edge treatment in the world. Without it, you’ve got three months. Unless you can pay for option 1 completely out of pocket — you’re Soros, basically — someone is going to deny your claim.

    Now, the Left assures is that it is terrible, horrible, no good, very bad that the CEO of Blue Cross makes that decision. But it’s fine, noble, and good when some GS-8 pencil-pusher in the Health Department does. Why?

    No, seriously: WHY? What is the difference here? Explain that one to me, Lefties, and I promise I’ll take your next “health care” proposal seriously.

    1. P_Ang

      Well, that’s an easy one, though they likely won’t admit it.

      It’s ok for the State to make a decision to terminate a parasite. It’s ok for a parasite to make the decision to Kevorkacize ™ themselves. But when “evil corporation” comes into the picture suddenly that parasite is a living, breathing, possible lefty with feelings and hopenchange!

    2. Nate Winchester

      Yeah, I too have been baffled by Leftist’s insistence that corporations are pure evil. So to reign them in they’re going to look to the “corporation” that has military powers.

  2. philmon Post author

    The arrogance comes in when the parents come up with the resources to give him a chance and they are not even allowed to try. The doctors said “we can’t”. When they tried to take him to doctors that said we might be able to, the hospital said “you may not”, and the state (that basically runs the medical industry there) added “and if you try, we’ll throw you in jail”.

    At that point, both the hospital and the state had a stake in whether he got that chance. Because if that baby got better, their credibility is shot – both the hospital’s and the state’s. And if you don’t think the pride of the doctors who originally said “no chance” comes into this … you’re kidding yourself. At that point, there was no argument that would change their minds and allow the parents to give their child that chance.

    Insurance companies have zero to do with this case, as they had raised the money.

    Nobody has the right to demand extraordinary medical services from anyone, or for the money to pay for it. But these people did not demand, people gave it to them because they wanted to help.
    There is a huge moral difference between demanding someone perform a service or demanding someone pay for it — and denying people with the resources to employ people willing to perform those services.

    Many believe that it is unfair that some can afford things and that some cannot. But it is the fairest thing overall we can get. If those who are willing to try are willing to do the extraordinary for what someone is able and willing to give to possibly save a life, the villain is the party that would use its authority to stop that transaction.

    The truth is the medical industry abuses the insurance industry. (I’ve seen it first hand). It is the main reason why costs are so high.

    When an insurance company refuses to pay, there is a contract, an agreement, and legal recourse. When a government says “I don’t care if you have the money and people willing to try, we will not allow it” there is no recourse. It is far more unfair. It’s evil.

    1. nightfly

      This is generally my argument when it comes to *any* government intervention – is it important enough to you to have no say in how things go on from here, and to have nobody to appeal to if it goes wrong?

      If a private organization rips me off, I can sue them; I can tell others not to patronize them; I can not write them checks. If the government rips me off, I can pound sand. Will voting the other band of crooks into office get me my money back? Can I move away? Can I stop paying my taxes? Nope, nope, and nope.

  3. Chris

    Using this situation to explain Obamacare to my liberal family – Best Insurance in the World. Worst Medical Care in the World. Insurance and Care are not the same thing.

  4. Linda Fox

    It’s dollars and cents on the part of the insurance companies. I get that. It’s their responsibility to keep their company solvent.
    What I have problems with is the people who would euthanize – adults, children, whoever – because the “quality of life” isn’t up to their standards.
    At least, that’s what they SAY is behind their decision.
    They lie – they WANT that person to die, because it makes them uncomfortable. Because they might not have enough to pay for REALLY important surgeries, like the “sex changes”.
    Much of my thinking is formed by my faith – I am a lifelong Catholic. At one point, I disagreed with the ideas on contraception and abortion (only the “necessary” ones). The case of Terry Shiavo changed me. I saw that they actively WANTED her to die. That, although the parents were willing to take care of her, she HAD to die.
    Because she might have improved. Because she might have called that “vegetative state” diagnosis into question.
    They couldn’t have that, so they kept food and water from her until – MANY days later – she starved to death.
    We wouldn’t allow someone to do that to a dog. We’d jail anyone that tried.
    To them, she was LESS than human. Less than a dog.

Comments are closed.