Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, just reading through some US social media, the NHS is basically murdering a child, that's what you get with socialized medicine, whereas good old US private health would bring him back from the brink, provided there's enough money.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It might not be realistic. It's pretty difficult transporting babies on ventilators.

Also what they reportedly want (to spend time with him at home) might not match up to the reality of death as soon as the ventilator is disconnected.

There's a big mismatch between the portrayals of the delivery of care people often have in mind and the actual blood, sweat and tears of reality.

For instance, there is an element of barbarism involved in repeatedly stabbing a babies body for a vein after months in intensive care with bruises over all available spots that doesn't fit well in the imagery available to most of us.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Notwithstanding all the medical arguments for and against, there is still the basic (IMHO) Christian belief that death is the ultimate form of healing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds too medically uncontrolled to me. You take him off life support, then transport him through London traffic, for how long? Then he starts to die? Poor kid.

---

You'd have to take him on a ventilator. Or he'd be dead in the lift otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My Sufi mates call death the wedding night, or something. I sort of get it.

---

Good call. Grenfell is very anger-provoking for me too.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, just reading through some US social media, the NHS is basically murdering a child, that's what you get with socialized medicine, whereas good old US private health would bring him back from the brink, provided there's enough money. ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Trump and the Pope produce a kind of Barnum's circus. Very undignified.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
To be fair to the Pope, he made no call for outlandish provisions

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... The right wing view seems to be that Charlie is being regimented by a death panel, consisting of bureaucrats, probably something to do with Europe. In fact, all the decisions are informed by medical advice. ....

---

And yet they are totally ok with an insurance company, concerned only with maximizing profits, making these decisions instead. Somebody please tell them that if wee Charlie lived in pre-Obamacare USA, he would have blown through his lifetime cap in his first few days of life, if by some chance his parents had insurance. Even if an experimental treatment saved him, he could never get health insurance. How eager would these right-wingers be to pay for Charlie's home care so he can be with his family then? His family would be crowd-funding for the rest of their lives to keep him alive. If they have to declare bankruptcy - also not uncommon in pre-Obamacare USA - and sell everything they own, what happens to Charlie then?

And the ubiquity of crowd-funding of health care in the USA should be another sign that it isn't a free market ...

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And yet they are totally ok with an insurance company, concerned only with maximizing profits, making these decisions instead. Somebody please tell them that if wee Charlie lived in pre-Obamacare USA, he would have blown through his lifetime cap in his first few days of life, if by some chance his parents had insurance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Even if an experimental treatment saved him. . . .

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
To be fair to the Pope, he made no call for outlandish provisions

---

I saw his statement and thought that if I was a doctor or nurse who'd just had an angst-ridden conversation explaining to the parents why we couldn't let them take their child home I could feel somewhat accused by the statement. There isn't anything in the statement to reflect what might be standing in the way of taking the child home, the implication could be that someone isn't allowing it who should allow it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... The right wing view seems to be that Charlie is being regimented by a death panel, consisting of bureaucrats, probably something to do with Europe. In fact, all the decisions are informed by medical advice. ....

---

And yet they are totally ok with an insurance company, concerned only with maximizing profits, making these decisions instead. Somebody please tell them that if wee Charlie lived in pre-Obamacare USA, he would have blown through his lifetime cap in his first few days of life, if by some chance his parents had insurance. Even if an experimental treatment saved him, he could never get health insurance. How eager would these right-wingers be to pay for Charlie's home care so he can be with his family then? His family would be crowd-funding for the rest of their lives to keep him alive. If they have to declare bankruptcy - also not uncommon in pre-Obamacare USA - and sell everything they own, what happens to Charlie then?

And the ubiquity of crowd-funding of health care in the USA should be another sign that it isn't a free market ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The statement I saw didn't suggest taking the child home.

---

quote:

---

For this he prays that their wish to accompany and treat their child until the end isn’t neglected.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wow, just reading through some US social media, the NHS is basically murdering a child, that's what you get with socialized medicine, whereas good old US private health would bring him back from the brink, provided there's enough money. ...

---

To be fair, I've started to realize that Americans have never had a government that seriously wanted all its citizens to have health care. It's only natural for them to have more trust in the private market, where at least they pretend to deliver health care. Private health care which costs an arm and a leg and includes gouging, but again, it's still better than what the Republicans want to do.

Someday, Americans might figure out that a health cares system is supposed to deliver health care, not just corporate profits. In the meantime, they can pretend to care about one little kid in the UK while ignoring the fact that the USA has the highest infant mortality of any developed nation.

Have I mentioned that health care is not a free market, and that free market health care is only economically viable for the wealthy?

---

Frankly, most Americans have some idea of most of this. Most of us have intimate experience of at least some of it.

--We know that health insurance is hard to get and keep. And confusing as all get out.

--We know horror stories--heck, they feature on both the news and in TV medical dramas.

--We know that people face terrible choices, especially about sick kids.

--We know that, even if we're lucky enough to have insurance, we may not be able to afford the deductible and co-pays.

--We know that we may not be able to get medical care at all.

--We know that, even if we have insurance and can afford our bit, we may not have paid time off from work for appointments or sick days.

--We know, for a fact, that insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid paying--thanks to a whistle-blower who spoke before Congress, some years back.

But, given that various powers that be (PTB)--insurance industry, medical industry, big pharma, and everyone in their pockets--fight tooth and nail to keep us from having affordable health care, let alone *universal*; insist on demolishing Obama's imperfect attempt; and want to pretty much demolish Medicare and Medicaid...what do you expect us to do differently, that might actually work, become law, and *stay* law?

Some people who can't afford care are lucky enough to get occasional treatment at traveling Remote Area Medical clinics.

Two relevant articles:

1) "When Sleeping In The Car Is The Price Of A Doctor Visit" (NPR; article, transcript, and audio).

2) "Free RAM Medical Clinic this weekend in Cleveland" (WRCB).

If you think that sounds like charity clinics in 3rd world countries, you're right.

And yes, many of us do spare some care for Charlie. FYI: those decisions by not-the-parents comprise a good chunk of the fear of socialized medicine.

Yes, I am a bit , pointed in a variety of directions--at responsible parties; at experiences I've had; and at some posts on this thread. It's one thing to think "Wow, the Yanks desperately need a health care system that works", and another to think "...and they're too stupid to know that, and too lethargic to do anything about it".

[ 04. July 2017, 09:28: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
And yes, many of us do spare some care for Charlie. FYI: those decisions by not-the-parents comprise a good chunk of the fear of socialized medicine.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
And yes, many of us do spare some care for Charlie. FYI: those decisions by not-the-parents comprise a good chunk of the fear of socialized medicine.

---

I think this is a big part of the transatlantic difference in attitude. ISTM this is not just a question about entitlement to medical treatment per se. It is also about attitudes to parents’ rights in relation to their children. AFAICT in the US it is more common to consider that children in some sense “belong” to their parents and that they should get the final say about what happens to them. This shows up in question to things like (home-)schooling and corporal punishment. In Europe the line is drawn in a different place, regarding the point at which the State can step in and say that parents are not acting in their child’s best interest. I can well believe that treatment might have continued in the US, if the money had been there for it. But again, the judge didn’t rule against treatment because of cost, but because continuing treatment was considered to be against the child’s best interest.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I'm not sure but I think the hospital is allowing time for extended family and friends to gather to be there and say good-bye before they turn off life support.

---

Yes, but they really want him to go home. Would that be too much to ask considering their trauma?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Notwithstanding all the medical arguments for and against, there is still the basic (IMHO) Christian belief that death is the ultimate form of healing.

---

I thought it was the last enemy to be conquered. It never seems to be referenced positively in Scripture, and that concurs with how most people see things.

The ultimate healing is resurrection, the opposite of death; its undoing.

Were death healing, it would be logical for Christian tradition to be in favour of euthenasia - "medicine can't cure you, so we're prescribing the ultimate healing for you" - and it generally isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Surely a lot of the discussion about the Charlie Gard case comes down to a modern-day reluctance to accept two things: First, that there are instances where people, especially children, can't be "fixed" which underlines the ultimately limited abilities of our doctors and hospitals to preserve the life of those we hold dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
In an instance such as this tragic case it has nothing to do with money because there is nothing available that would effect a cure for this child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
As for the question of who takes decisions on the future of this little boy, it all boils down to whether or not one considers that parents have an inalienable right to insist on whatever palliative care is available, regardless of whether or not it is actually working. The doctors in the Gard case say that not only are they unable to offer any condition improving treatment, they also can no longer offer effective palliative analgesia - in other words the little chap is probably in pain which cannot be properly alleviated or managed. They have no way of knowing for sure because Charlie is deaf, blind, immobile and unable to make a noise - all evidence of the catastrophic brain damage which the disease has brought about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It is understandable that the parents don't want to take the decision to tell doctors to switch off the machines that are keeping their son alive; understandable too that they would grab at anything offered which claimed to be able to help their son. But in this instance the medical experts on both sides of the atlantic say the same thing: that there is no hope of either cure or enhanced short life; that the offer of "treatment" that has been made can have no chance of success; and that there is in any case no way of getting the patient to the USA without causing further pain.

I can't begin to imagine how the Gard parents are feeling but in this instance no amount of money or goodwill can help.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
...--We know that health insurance is hard to get and keep. And confusing as all get out.

--We know horror stories--heck, they feature on both the news and in TV medical dramas.

--We know that people face terrible choices, especially about sick kids.

--We know that, even if we're lucky enough to have insurance, we may not be able to afford the deductible and co-pays.

--We know that we may not be able to get medical care at all.

--We know that, even if we have insurance and can afford our bit, we may not have paid time off from work for appointments or sick days.

--We know, for a fact, that insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid paying--thanks to a whistle-blower who spoke before Congress, some years back. ...

It's one thing to think "Wow, the Yanks desperately need a health care system that works", and another to think "...and they're too stupid to know that, and too lethargic to do anything about it".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"I would rather be fucked over by a corporation than be served by my government because FREEDOM!"

---

This. It's almost as though people thought the Declaration of Independence (hey, it's still July 4 where I am) spoke of the unalienable rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. You know, because the order matters. That's why Adam got to call the shots, right? He was created first?

Yay. We're free to die.

[ 05. July 2017, 02:50: Message edited by: Ohher ]

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posted                      

quote:

---

Germany has a universal multi-payer health care system with two main types of health insurance: "Statutory Health Insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) known as sickness funds (Krankenkassen) and "Private Health Insurance" (Private Krankenversicherung).... According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think you misrepresent German healthcare.

quote:

---

Germany has a universal multi-payer health care system with two main types of health insurance: "Statutory Health Insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) known as sickness funds (Krankenkassen) and "Private Health Insurance" (Private Krankenversicherung).... According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
He works as a nurse. No overcrowding, no bed shortages and no stressful job. He loves it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, boogie said something about people being 'precious' about the NHS, which I don't get. It works fine with enough money. The Tories will starve it of money, then the right-wing press will say that the NHS isn't working, then some right-wing dork will suggest private insurance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
He works as a nurse. No overcrowding, no bed shortages and no stressful job. He loves it.

---

At 11.3% of GDP vs 9.1% of GDP for the UK. Percentages out of GDPs of $3.2T vs $2.3T.

So if the NHS had 60% more funding it would be a good comparison. And that is where the political differences are. Presumably in Germany there is a political consensus to fund health to that level, therefore it isn't a political football. In the UK there are opposing views on the right level of funding.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, boogie said something about people being 'precious' about the NHS, which I don't get. It works fine with enough money. The Tories will starve it of money, then the right-wing press will say that the NHS isn't working, then some right-wing dork will suggest private insurance.

---

I think, if we are keeping the NHS, we should pay a proper tax which is completely ring fenced for the NHS, no political interference.

I would much prefer to move over to the German system, even if it costs a lot - it works. But saying this causes people to think I want to go the American way. Far from it, I think they have the worst of all health provision.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't follow that. If more money will make the NHS work fine, why move to a different system? And after Blair pumped money in, it did seem to work fine, as far as my experience went. The right wing tend to dislike the NHS, therefore starve it of money.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't follow that. If more money will make the NHS work fine, why move to a different system? And after Blair pumped money in, it did seem to work fine, as far as my experience went. The right wing tend to dislike the NHS, therefore starve it of money.

---

The interesting question, of course, is not "can we make the NHS better with more money?" but "what way of spending our money produces the best results?".

It's completely clear that the American answer is the wrong one, but Boogie points out that Germany has a system that works OK, and there are several other countries with healthcare systems that seem to work OK.

So it's possible that the best answer is just "increase the NHS budget", but if there are things that we could copy from other systems that would make the NHS more efficient, why wouldn't we look at that?

Maybe you look at other systems, and decide that they don't have anything useful to offer.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
but Boogie points out that Germany has a system that works OK

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
And there is no slack in our system at all. I expect that's why Boogie's son was able to get his bad knee sorted out so quickly; the German system presumably has extra capacity built-in.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
...--We know that health insurance is hard to get and keep. And confusing as all get out.

--We know horror stories--heck, they feature on both the news and in TV medical dramas.

--We know that people face terrible choices, especially about sick kids.

--We know that, even if we're lucky enough to have insurance, we may not be able to afford the deductible and co-pays.

--We know that we may not be able to get medical care at all.

--We know that, even if we have insurance and can afford our bit, we may not have paid time off from work for appointments or sick days.

--We know, for a fact, that insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid paying--thanks to a whistle-blower who spoke before Congress, some years back. ...

It's one thing to think "Wow, the Yanks desperately need a health care system that works", and another to think "...and they're too stupid to know that, and too lethargic to do anything about it".

---

Yep, private health insurance really sucks, doesn't it? So why stick with it? Millions of ordinary folks in the USA are already getting care through government and non-profit insurance programs. (They're the ones holding the signs that say, 'Keep government out of Medicare'.) Why not everybody? If it isn't lethargy or stupidity, it's whatever the word is for "I would rather be fucked over by a corporation than be served by my government because FREEDOM!"

---

quote:

---

But, given that various powers that be (PTB)--insurance industry, medical industry, big pharma, and everyone in their pockets--fight tooth and nail to keep us from having affordable health care, let alone *universal*; insist on demolishing Obama's imperfect attempt; and want to pretty much demolish Medicare and Medicaid...what do you expect us to do differently, that might actually work, become law, and *stay* law?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oh, and per that Wikipedia article, it was the American Medical Association (AMA) that termed it "socialized medicine", in the early 1900s--and fought against it.

---

quote:

---

If medicine were taken over by the state, it would be as disastrous as was the domination by the Church in the Middle Ages; a greater disaster, because the Church was cultured."

---

quote:

---

the work of a complete and uncontrolled dictator, with quisling doctors to help him

---

quote:

---

a nationalised health service is the first step, and a big one, towards national socialism with the government as medical Führer

---