, , , , , ,

American proponents of communism – let’s call it what it is – frequently point with enthusiasm to nations with national government healthcare. The UK’s NHS is a usual suspect.

On the whole, such a system just might be able to deliver more consistent, if not better, care than the current U.S. Obama-Trump-Ryan-insurance cabal racket approach. It certainly couldn’t cost any more.

However, it would inevitably lead to cases like this:

The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son.

After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity”.

Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, had raised more than £1.3 million to take Charlie to the U.S. for partially untested, “experimental” treatment, which they claim could save his life.

Britain has a socialised healthcare system, and despite the fact his parents raised private funds for treatment, the courts could have acted as what some in U.S. politicians call a “death panel”, decided who is and who is not worth saving.

“We strongly feel as his parents that Charlie should get a chance to try these medications. He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain,” the mother wrote on a crowd-funding page.

Die with dignity, peasants!

So, your child is terminally ill. Death is certain. There’s a potential treatment which might work in another country. You have the financial means to try the treatment. You want to save your child, if that’s at all possible; you want to try the experimental way. What’s the risk? What’s the harm?

The risk is to the centralized power of your ever-benevolent government. The harm is that you might use freedom to solve a problem or simply that you might attempt to do so. That does little for the collective. It does nothing to keep certain people in positions of life-or-death power.



Therefore, rather than live free and make decisions for your family, you instead succumb to the agony of Nazi-style eugenics. The unfit will die. But, in England, they get to die with dignity!

In America, ObamaCare was put into place (and TrumpCare is debated [quietly]) for two overt reasons: 1) give more power to Washington; 2) prop up the leaching insurance syndicate. The covert reason for both these doomed-to-a-less-than-dignified death was(is): pave the way for universal government healthcare, like the NHS.

It’s coming, like it or not – probably within ten years or so. There are ways a partial government system could be made to work – maybe and not with much hope – in the USA. The Swiss and the Kiwis have systems that, while under state mandate, rely almost exclusively on privatization. They work extremely well. That probably wouldn’t work at all, here, due to demographic differences and the base evil of D.C.

Some with surely get their birth control pills and trans vegetable surguries for free under the coming programs. They may even find a way to scheme free tattoos into the graft (tattoo removal for the remorseful grifters). Others will surely watch a child die, with dignity or otherwise.

In the wake of such a program, and following the not-so-long-after collapse, we should look for fitting solutions to those problematic persons who give such gifts of dignity. Nature would seem to dictate rope.