Yes, the court’s decision was remarkable. It implies that Dr. Hirano and others would inflict harm on the child, as if he’s some third world quack pushing Laetrile.
And you know as well as I do that the necessarily heavy tax burden on many Americans will exclude that right.
Perhaps you won’t, but you do know the strong radical egalitarian tendencies in the progressive movement.
Yep. Their way is the right way, and alternatives should not be considered or allowed.
This is true, but it represents parental authority and autonomy. Gard’s treatment would have been outside government control.
The Charlie Gard case has everything to do with medical ethics and little to nothing to do with medical payment systems; this can be seen by the fact that the UK wouldn’t allow the treatment even if it was funded privately. The UK courts and doctors determined that pursuing further heavy medical treatment for Charlie Gard would be unethical because it had little to no chance of improving his quality and duration of life, and if it did prolong the duration it would not improve the quality. Add to this the fact that Charlie would be undergoing disruptive medical procedures as he died and you have a case for preventing the family from pursuing the procedures for Charlie.
All that “play the game” really requires is that everyone pay for the system with their taxes. It is a feature of some single-payer systems that doctors cannot do business outside of the system for direct payment from the patients. But that feature is not a necessary part of nationalized health insurance. Some systems do not have that feature. And if Charlie’s parents had been living under one of those systems, they could have gotten him moved at their own expense (which they were prepared to do.) The part about the government deciding it would cause Charlie harm is a separate issue and is not a necessary feature in any such system.
And this has nothing to do with a single-payer system and everything to do with the medical ethics of the country in question. The exact same scenario could arise in a private payer system. We have states in the U.S. that can even force medical treatment of children against the will of their parents. It is all about medical ethics.
This has nothing to do with Charlie Gard, nor medical ethics.
In a private system, the government doesn’t get to decide. The parties in the contract do.
Incorrect. In the U.S. a child can be forced to receive medical care against the wishes of the parents, and a child can be “protected” from medical treatment that is deemed unethical.
We are talking about two different kinds of “participate” that do not have to go together. One kind is participating by paying for it. And in that sense you are right. Unless everyone is forced to “participate,” only the poor would have any reason do it. Nationalized health insurance would fall apart without that.
In the present system, doctors have choices. If they think what they will be paid by Blue Cross is unfair then they can align with Aetna, United Health, Cigna, etc.
They can go outside the system and not take government insurance.
Private pay and private insurance could certainly still exist.
Except that the taxes even into the 4th and maybe 5th lowest quintile of earners will have to be so confiscatory as to leave most people without the means of paying for it, other than the ruling class, of course.o_mlly:
Private pay and private insurance could certainly still exist.
People are able to afford supplemental insurance in France, whether through work or privately. The taxes are higher, obviously, but not so much that people can’t afford to live. The doctors and hospitals charge less, however, and there is less luxury even while there is faster and more comprehensive care.
That is effectively what Obamacare is now.
No it’s not. The vast majority of Americans are not even insured under ACA. And many in the individual market pay for their own.JonNC:
That is effectively what Obamacare is now.