Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
OPINION: Charlie Gard: 0, Death Panels: 1 and Counting...
Socialist heralds would have the world believe they're the arbiters of all things compassion. Free healthcare for all! they trumpet from their self-erected ivory towers, safely nestled behind secure walls. Healthcare is a human right! they scream at anyone who dares question their sincerity. National healthcare is about COMPASSION! they shout when someone objects to government funding of the masses.
But when a baby from the UK was sentenced to death, by the government of the United Kingdom no less, socialist heroes were eerily silent. Here's looking at you, Bernie Sanders.
As the parents of Charlie Gard did everything in their (albeit limited) parental power to save their child, the government of the United Kingdom fought them, insisting their son should die. For his own good. Despite having the funds to take Charlie out of the UK and into the United States earlier this year, the government said no. The UK government, not the parents, were making life and ultimately death decisions for a small child. Read UK Judge Will 'Allow' a US Doctor to Examine Charlie Gard. Isn't that Nice?
Socialist sympathizers kept quite as the courts and parents volleyed choices, as young Charlie's chances at life dwindled. Now that Charlie's parents have lost all hope, after so much time was wasted while their boy's condition worsened, the succubi of the dark left slithered from their lairs.
Salon released an article blaming the right for "politicizing" Charlie's case, while also making the case that sometimes people must die. Not to be outdone by The Guardian which released this gem:
The author, Ian Kennedy, makes a compelling argument about using our reason, not our emotions, to make such life altering decisions. He relays a story from Aukland, New Zealand where a couple wanted to pull life support from their recently paralyzed child; an illustration that "sometimes parents don't know best." With the trend of parents pushing transgenderism on their children, I'd have to agree.
But Charlie's parents wanted Charlie to live. They wanted to exhaust all life-saving measures they could in the little time they had to save their child. They were not trying to "take the easy road out" by snuffing their baby, ergo cutting all responsibilities to his care. Charlie's parents had raised over a million pounds in private donations to remove him from the NHS and take him to the United States. But the government said no.
Call me a cynic, but methinks the UK has done this a few times before sentencing a "terminal" child to death. In the Netherlands, a Dutch Doctor Forcibly Euthanized an Elderly Patient. Environmentalists are actively championing fewer children to "save the planet." The left has long advocated the wanton slaughter of unborn babies to the alter of "choice." So pardon me if I have a tough time believing Charlie Gard is a first for our tea-swilling neighbors to the east.
Charlie was simply another victim of the death panels: the all powerful government authorities who decide who gets to live, and who must die. He's at least the first with a name and a face we now all know.
When the government funds healthcare, the government calls the shots. Lemme put it another way: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" which comes into play when healthcare funds sit in a giant governmental pot. Take care. Play nice.
In this case, where Charlie's parents had their own money, the UK government authority had to maintain its control over its citizens. The government, not the people, get to dictate how each person should be cared for. And when their life support should be pulled. After all, government -- not individuals -- knows best.
This is the trade for "free" healthcare the left never wants to discuss. It's the ugly side of national healthcare. Well, that and less advancements in medicine. "Free"(funded by taxes) national healthcare it may be, but "great" it is not. Watch DRUGS ARE AWESOME!! Socialized Healthcare Sucks.
Charlie Gard will lose his life to national healthcare. The left will say (as they already are) that these are the sacrifices that must be made for "free" national healthcare services. Some babies will have to die, so that other babies may live. The state gets to decide who those babies are. The state will decide which children will receive life-saving treatment, and which children will be slated for a painless death.
Right now all the champions of single-payer healthcare are fine with these callous choices. Because, unsurprisingly, they're not currently affected by them.
When the government has the power to fund the healthcare of your life, the government has the power to defund the healthcare of your life.
With our government slowly paving the way toward national healthcare in the United States, it's wise to take an accounting of all we're slated to surrender for "free" services. Because as Charlie Gard's plight has shown us, sometimes it might be your life. Or the life of your child.
~Written by Courtney Kirchoff