You are here

O/T Charlie Gard issue

Acratopotes's picture

I've bene following this story for a while now and well I'm sorry to say his parents gave up today,

IMHO they never should've let it drag on for so long, I feel this little boy suffered more and that his parents were extremely selfish. Why did they not make the right decision in the first place?

I know it's easy to say this, I might say differently when I am in the same situation.

What's your opinion on this.... let nature takes it course or intervene for 7 months, spend millions and then give up?

Comments

MollyBrown's picture

My take on this is that I have a son who has a genetic disorder and needs lots of medical attention. The same politicians who were plotting to take away his insurance (Medicaid) were the same ones trying to get Charlie to come over here. This issue was a great example of hypocrisy. Very disgusting.

Acratopotes's picture

are you being serious about this... simply disgusting.... can you use their vote on Charlie maybe to get your son some help?

Maybe this case could help allot of people, I don't know, never thought about it further then poor family...
but my argument will be - your are willing to help a UK child while you refuse to help a country citizen?

sounds rude I know, but you have to do what you have to do to get your kid good medical help Molly...

see I'm conflicted in issues like this, cause I've never dealt with it.. only reading about it

ESMOD's picture

I would be in favor of opening the medicaid roles to people who normally wouldn't fall within the income guidelines if they can show that they are otherwise unable to obtain insurance for a reasonable premium cost.

There would be a few sticky areas though. First, is it fair for people to basically fly free with no insurance and then cry when they have a need and can't get it or get it affordably? So, either we have a mandate that everyone obtains coverage, or we live with the fact that there will be some that will develop conditions or experience things that will become pre-existing conditions when they are uninsured and those people shouldn't be able to waltz in and get insurance after avoiding the cost for years.

2nd, insurance companies will need to continue to offer coverage at equivalent rates even when someone leaves their employer or moves. Of course, equivalent rate might mean the premium to the insured will go up since they would have to cover both the employer and employee share.

3rd. Going on medicaid for some won't be free. If you have proved that you are unable to obtain insurance that is affordable (would need guidelines.. perhaps multiples of income.. or compared to group rates?) then you can buy into medicaid. Your rate would be determined by what you could afford to pay. Thus, the people with pre-existing conditions could have a plan like medicaid.. but they would not get out of the obligation to pay for it.

Now, of course, this would probably mean that insurance companies would jack up cost for pre-existing conditions and defacto force people onto medicaid. Also, we know how great..ahem.. our govt works at stuff like this, so we can expect waste, fraud etc...

That brings up a 4th.. issue which would be to require employers of a certain number of employees to provide at least a high deductible plan to it's workers.. that might make it harder for insurance companies to weasel out of it all.. employers too couldn't push off their obligation on the govt.

ESMOD's picture

As someone who used military base medical care growing up.. I have to say that I can't agree with that the quality or delivery was better..lol. I am pretty certain that issues with the VA have also been pretty front and center too.

My dental experiences were horror movie time.

And yes... the fraud in most govt programs stems from private individuals.. of course, but it is the inability of the government to set up proper controls and oversight that lead to those issues.

I would have to say most people would agree that govt providers of services aren't the most efficient models around. medical or otherwise.

WalkOnBy's picture

because there was no helping him. His condition was such that he was going to die.

It's sad, it's tragic, but there is nothing that could have been done for this little one.

At some point, that fact had to be accepted.

ntm's picture

That poor child was in pain every day of his life. I don't think it was up to the courts to make medical decisions for him, but I do think the parents should have been less selfish, and willing to let him go. It rankles me that US politicians who are ready to throw 22 million men, women,and children off of health care showed so much concern over one well-funded terminally ill child. Pro-life stances should not end at birth.

Kes's picture

I do think it was up to the courts to take the decision on whether further medical intervention was appropriate - they had advice from all the relevant medical experts - and the idea that he should be taken from his home in the UK and subjected to further treatment in the USA which would not necessarily have prolonged his life, but during which he undoubtedly would be suffering - was not a good outcome, IMO.

His parents were understandably very emotional and would do anything to save the child - but I do not think they were thinking clearly, or indeed rationally. I do think they should have been allowed to take him home to die, however.

Thumper's picture

Poor baby boy.

My brother had to pull the plug for a lack of better words on his son when he died from injuries from a &^%^$# drunk driver.

It is never easy, and I can not begin to imagine their pain. Sad