"Affordable healthcare for all" translates into: we'll kill your child if it saves the government money. What other conclusion am I to draw after both Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard? For those playing the American home game of
Stormy Daniels Does Washington
, a recap:
Alfie Evans is a British toddler with an undiagnosed degenerative brain disease who the National Health Service of the United Kingdom has determined unsavable. Thus they've condemned him to death. Despite Alfie's parents having resources to take Alfie out of the country for treatment in Italy. Read
Parents of Ill Toddler Fight UK Government for Right to Save Son's Life.
Alfie has now been made a citizen of Italy, with the Italian embassy threatening murder charges against the United Kingdom if little Alfie perishes in their "care." No matter, the UK authorities know best. Alfie has been removed from life support -- he's fighting and breathing on his own -- but a cadre of bobbies are surrounding his hospital room, preventing anyone from trying to save or move the toddler. If only they'd protected their borders as dilligently.
Charlie Gard had a similar story. His parents had also raised money to afford to privately fly Charlie out of the country for treatment in the United States. The United States made Charlie Gard a United States citizen. Yet the British authorities played the role of Charlie's parents -- and God -- forcing Charlie to die in the United Kingdom. Read
OPINION: Charlie Gard: 0, Death Panels: 1 and Counting.
The United Kingdom's healthcare service is paid by the government, not privately funded. When the government pays for your body's care, the government decides what care your body receives. In essence, if the government is paying for your body, the government has an ownership stake in it. So when the government runs numbers on the cost of saving a life versus the mathematical probability of getting that money back through taxes paid in that patient's lifetime, and the result is undesirable...
Kill the patient.
When some other entity besides a person, or in this case the parents, is paying for something, that something has less value. Especially when the cost analysis doesn't work out in that person's favor. The UK government looks at people as things. As you would a used car. When the cost to repair the used car is greater than the value of the used car, the car goes to the junkyard. If you think this analogy is callous, I agree.
Yet the United Kingdom's NHS is condemning little children to death because to them, it makes no financial sense to treat a child they've deemed terminal.
Killing children is how the NHS is saving money. Taxpayer money, which the NHS wants to allocate to treating patients with better chances of survival... and who can pay the NHS back through their life of paying taxes.
The sick, twisted, evil part the UK authorities are playing here is not allowing Alfie's parents -- and Charlie Gard's parents before him -- to take their child out of the UK to be treated privately, with private money, into another country. That's where this goes from a simple budgeting issue to heinously evil.
But what precedent would people fleeing the UK for medical treatment elsewhere set for the precious "Affordable healthcare for all" narrative? Probably wouldn't be as popular with audiences worldwide as the bespectacled boy wizard.
Yes, the UK's health system is a cautionary tale: paying for your own healthcare means you are in charge of your healthcare and the decisions surrounding it. American medical costs may be higher than countries with socialized medicine. But you get to decide what happens to you and your family. You have the right to live and continue living, with no judges or police officers stationed outside your room waiting for you to slowly die.
"Affordable care for all" = the "less valuable" be sentenced to death so others might live. And you'd better hope you're not deemed "less valuable."