July 24, 2017

"Our son is an absolute warrior and we will miss him terribly. One little boy has brought the world together."

"His body, heart and soul may soon be gone but his spirit will live on indefinitely and he will make a difference for years to come. We are now going to spend our most precious moments with Charlie who will not make it to his first birthday. We now ask for privacy. Mum and dad love you so much. We always have and always will and we say sorry we didn't save you. We had a chance and we were not allowed. Sleep tight baby boy Charlie Matthew William Gard. Our little hero. Thank you."

The parents of Charlie Gard end their legal battle. We're told that new tests have convinced them that the damage the baby has already suffered is irreversible and that further treatment would inflict pain (which is what the doctors seem to have believed throughout the legal proceedings).

140 comments:

Darrell said...

Prayers for Charlie and his family.

David Smith said...

Absolutely, prayers for everyone involved.

As yet unclear is whether it would have been too late to begin treatment in March, when the parents first tried to take him to the States.

sunsong said...

I add my prayers as well...

mockturtle said...

Prayers and deep affection for this brave little family.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Yet there are many who want to saddle the US with the likes of the NHS. Will we ever learn? Regardless of the outcome as David Smith points out we will never know whether treatment started in March might have helped. I am sure the Docs are feeling satisfied, but I hope a couple have decent consciences and will always wonder whether they did the right thing.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I don't blame the parents for wanting to do everything they can to save their baby.
It's a sad situation for a precious baby boy.

Michael K said...

The British made themselves look like fools in all this.

The whole topic of euthanasia is fraught with mis statements, I got into a little debate on facebook yesterday.

I commented that the Netherlands has a policy that is nowhere in the law but an ER dpc who admits a COPD patient to ICU gets fired.

Instead they are given a lethal injection of morphine in the ER.

A person who said he lived in the Netherlands said this does not happen.

I did a quick search and found this.

Dutch Penal Code Articles 293 and 294 make both euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal, even today. However, as the result of various court cases, doctors who directly kill patients or help patients kill themselves will not be prosecuted as long as they follow certain guidelines.

In fact, I have read that no doctor has ever been prosecuted for breaking that law.

Some physicians use this distinction between “euthanasia” and “life-terminating treatment” to avoid having a patient’s death classified as “euthanasia,” thus freeing doctors from following the established euthanasia guidelines and reporting the death to local authorities. One such example was discussed during the December 1990 Institute for Bioethics conference in Maastricht, Holland. A physician from The Netherlands Cancer Institute told of approximately 30 cases a year where doctors ended patients’ lives after the patients intentionally had been put into a coma by means of a morphine injection. The Cancer Institute physician then stated that these deaths were not considered “euthanasia” because they were not voluntary, and that to have discussed the plan to end these patients’ lives with the patients would have been “rude” since they all knew they had incurable conditions.

This is all done without public scrutiny.

I am OK with euthanasia with complete patient cooperation. I have done it in the days before lawyers got so involved.

Now, it is done to keep expenses down and without consent, Those poor parents got caught up on this.

Michael K said...

I botched the first version of that comment.

JPS said...

I was having a mild argument over this case with someone who thought it ridiculous that some people were questioning the British hospital and courts on this.

My gut position was, "No, it probably won't work. He is very likely going to die. But if it was your kid, you'd bet on that miracle. If it was mine, I sure as hell would. And who the hell are these people who tell them, 'No, you can't'? What gives them that right?"

Thought about it more afterward. If that were my baby, I'm not at all sure I would have bet on that miracle. Maybe I would have added it all up, decided there wasn't enough hope to gamble on, and let him die in such peace as we could arrange.

I still think even if the parents were "wrong," they had the right to be. I still question the right of the doctors and the courts to tell them, No, you can't do that. You're not thinking clearly so we're going to take that decision from you. Oh, and, no, you can't take him home from the hospital to die either. I don't know how you tell that to the parents of a dying baby.

n.n said...

It seems the decision is to allow evolution to run its natural course.

The parents should be assured that there is a reasonable and practical threshold for anthropogenic interventions, and take comfort in that they did not take affirmative action to force the end of their child's life.

further treatment would inflict pain

It is the rare medical or surgical treatment that does not.

JPS said...

Michael K, re euthanasia:

Are you familiar with Jonah Goldberg's recurring argument on Hidden Law?

I seem to recall his making this case, and my own naive position on euthanasia is this: It shouldn't be legal. Doctors should not do it. But if a dying patient in terrible pain keeps on asking for more painkiller, and the doctor keeps it coming and the patient happens to die from an overdose, well, that was the risk the doctor quite understandably, even commendably, ran in trying to ease that poor patient's suffering.

Rick said...

It's interesting to note the British position as supported by the American left - but then compare that to how the same political interests understand similar problems under different systems.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251160/

For example John Q was intentionally made as pro-national healthcare propaganda arguing corporations are evil for considering cost. Yet now those same groups argue against their former position, labeling their former position irresponsible. Apparently all it took to completely reverse their policy preference was whether the institution responsible was a member of Team Blue.

Achilles said...

I pray that all of the people who believe in single payer and government control of health care learn something from this.

It has always been clear who wants people to die.

holdfast said...

Folks will say "well, in America the insurance companies and hospitals will let you die when you run out of insurance or money, so what's the difference?"

Well, there is a difference - You can mortgage your house (or your parents' house), you can launch a crowd-funding appeal, you can appeal to a religious group like the Shriners or others who run hospitals. But to be told by the state "We will not give further treatment, and you are forbidden by law from seeking it elsewhere"? That's your freakin' Death Panels right there.

In America (for now) we're free to fail - we're even free to die in the gutter sometimes - but at least we are also free to try. Under the NHS it is truly "everything within the state medical system; nothing outside the state medical system". Or to butcher another quote "a state medical system comprehensive enough to give you all the care you need is also powerful enough to decide when you no longer "need" care".

Trumpit said...

So much pain is inflicted on humans by their fellow wicked humans, as well as pain inflicted on wild animals as they are tortured and slaughtered by hunters and trappers that I can't shed a tear for a hopelessly brain dead infant, who was unaware of anything. You can call me heartless if you want, but I suggest you look in the mirror.

Unknown said...

"I pray that all of the people who believe in single payer and government control of health care learn something from this."

Do you seriously think that any private health insurance would've approved continued care or experimental procedures for this child?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Unless you are a strict vegetarian, Trumpit - YOU look in the mirror. Hypocrite.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Private health insurance - eternally vilified by the fascist left.

Snark said...

It's a fundamental mistake to understand this as an NHS issue. The core principle at stake is the fact that in the U.K. children have distict individual rights independent of their parents, and in this case doctors had a different view of Charlie's best interests that they were professionally obligated to argue. That said, it's universally understandable how utterly painful and frustrating this has been for Charlie's parents, who must have felt helpless anguish at every step. Heartbreaking, and nothing anybody deserves to suffer.

Rick said...

Unknown said...
"I pray that all of the people who believe in single payer and government control of health care learn something from this."

Do you seriously think that any private health insurance would've approved continued care or experimental procedures for this child?


I'm greatly amused the left thinks this point relevant. they claimed we need to move to government controlled healthcare because it was a scandal private insurance wouldn't cover such treatment. Their belated acceptance of fiscal reality shows their previous criticisms were nothing but demonizing the hated other and theater for the rubes.

Now their about face reveals they were perfectly capable of understanding fiscal reality and the only goal was establishing government primacy and controlling Americans' choices. Yet another admission the left's critics were right all along.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
"I pray that all of the people who believe in single payer and government control of health care learn something from this."

Do you seriously think that any private health insurance would've approved continued care or experimental procedures for this child?

I believe the millions the parents raised on gofundme would have.

But your precious government health care providers would not let the parents take their kid out of government health care. They had police there to make sure the parents couldn't take their child out of the hospital before the state removed life support to go to a hospital in the US they had already arranged.

In the end you people only care about power over other people.

THe parents did leg work and raised money to get treatment for their child. The bureaucrats couldn't be bothered. This is why we need a government free health care system. So people like Inga can't order your child to die.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You can call me heartless if you want,

No, Trumpie, we prefer to call you insane; we're sure you're full of heart, crazies often are.

Achilles said...

Trumpit is a moby trying to make leftists look bad. Stop feeding it.

Snark said...

"THe parents did leg work and raised money to get treatment for their child. The bureaucrats couldn't be bothered. This is why we need a government free health care system. So people like Inga can't order your child to die."

Such willful, laughable, self-indulgent ignorance of what Charlie's case was about.

Trumpit said...

@Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home

You call me a "hypocrite," as if you're not, but you're hopeless stupid.


"Achilles" is a heel. And stop trolling me, you nasty Moby, whatever you mean by that insult.

AllenS said...

which is what the doctors seem to have believed throughout the legal proceedings

Never let a doctor(s) stop you from getting a second opinion.

Michael K said...

Do you seriously think that any private health insurance would've approved continued care or experimental procedures for this child?

Do you seriously not know that they had raised the money to pay for the care ?

What was at stake was control.

Unknown said...

For those of you who deny that health insurance companies routinely denied claims such as the Gard child and want to go back to the days when heath insurance company employees were hired expressly to find ways to deny such claims, you are either stupid, have amnesia or are some sort of extremist loon like Achilles.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Trumpie, are you a grandmother or a g-g? Your verbiage reminds me of Abe Simpson.

Fabi said...

I pray that none of the noble bureaucrats were inconvenienced in any manner. That should be everyone's primary concern in this case.

Achilles said...

Snark said...
"THe parents did leg work and raised money to get treatment for their child. The bureaucrats couldn't be bothered. This is why we need a government free health care system. So people like Inga can't order your child to die."

Such willful, laughable, self-indulgent ignorance of what Charlie's case was about.

Do explain. This will be insightful. I look forward to you describing how the Government cares more about the child or the child's care than the parents do.

This case is fundamentally about choice and who gets to make it. Some government doctors made a decision and the bureaucracy backed them up. The parents talked to other doctors who had a different opinion and wanted them to provide care.

Do you want the bureaucrats or the parents to make the choice about which doctors to use?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Trumpit - are you a vegetarian?

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
For those of you who deny that health insurance companies routinely denied claims such as the Gard child and want to go back to the days when heath insurance company employees were hired expressly to find ways to deny such claims, you are either stupid, have amnesia or are some sort of extremist loon like Achilles.

Nobody here is arguing for the insurance companies. The parents raised their own money you dishonest creep.

It is instructive that Inga defends the state when it denies coverage, but thinks insurance companies are evil when they deny coverage. Gross.

You want power and control over other people and you are dishonest and hypocritical when going about obtaining that power over other people.

Unknown said...

"Do you seriously not know that they had raised the money to pay for the care ?

What was at stake was control."

I'm well aware of this. I didn't remark on allowing the child treatment paid for by private funding, which I think should've been allowed. I remarked on private health insurers routinely denying such claims. Let's not pretend they didn't.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The vilification of free choice. The hallmark of the collective left.

No choices for you. A government bureaucrat knows best.

Unknown said...

"It is instructive that Inga defends the state when it denies coverage, but thinks insurance companies are evil when they deny coverage. Gross."

Your stupidity and extremism are what is truly gross. You make Althouse comments threads look like a meeting place for future mass shooters. Your continuous references to Washington DC burning down at the hands of angry Trumpists and retribution for those you call "Stalinists" should make you an interesting person for the FBI. You are a creep, a loon and I think you seriously need some help for your PTSD.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Leftists want someone else to pay for their generous bureaucratically run leisure care.

Trumpit said...

@Michael K
"I botched the first version of that comment."

You have a habit of doing that. I find ALL your comments botched to a large degree. Maybe, you should find another hobby rather than torture us with your profound shallowness.

Michael K said...

"Maybe, you should find another hobby rather than torture us with your profound shallowness."

Why are you such a jerk ?

Francisco D said...

Let's just ignore Trumpet. It is just looking for attention.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...

Your stupidity and extremism are what is truly gross. You make Althouse comments threads look like a meeting place for future mass shooters. Your continuous references to Washington DC burning down at the hands of angry Trumpists and retribution for those you call "Stalinists" should make you an interesting person for the FBI. You are a creep, a loon and I think you seriously need some help for your PTSD.

Poor Inga. =(

Michael K said...

"I remarked on private health insurers routinely denying such claims. Let's not pretend they didn't."

What about "experimental" don't you understand?

Everybody knew that.

It was about control.

The lefties are really aggressive today.

deepelemblues said...

The authoritarians got what they wanted... delay and delay until even the small chance of this treatment working disappeared.

Michael K said...

"Never let a doctor(s) stop you from getting a second opinion."

Back in the days when politicians thought second opinions would help ration care, somebody did a study that suggested those who got second opinions that agreed with the first were MORE likely to have the procedure done.

Insurance companies quickly stopped paying for second opinions.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...

I'm well aware of this. I didn't remark on allowing the child treatment paid for by private funding, which I think should've been allowed. I remarked on private health insurers routinely denying such claims. Let's not pretend they didn't.

Which just absolutely highlights your hypocrisy.

The leftists don't think it is necessarily wrong the insurance companies denied care, they are just jealous of the insurance companies and want to get in on the action it seems.

Unknown said...

The leftists don't think it is necessarily wrong the insurance companies denied care, they are just jealous of the insurance companies and want to get in on the action it seems."

Delusional.

Unknown said...

"Insurance companies quickly stopped paying for second opinions."

I remember this well, absolutely true.

MountainMan said...

The parents had raised 1.4M USD in a fundraising campaign several months ago to bring him to the US for experimental treatment. They never had a chance. This event has nothing to do with health care but the state, through the NHS, demonstrating who is in control. It is questionable that the treatment would have been effective but there was no financial burden on the NHS and the US researchers lost a chance at a test case that would have advanced the science. Losers all around. I hope all of you who advocate the stupidity of state-controlled health care take note.

I had two co-workers over the years who worked as ex-pats in the UK for several years each. Except for the simplest cases they hated the NHS. They would use their twice/year company-paid trips home for their families to go to the doctor. The wife of one had to get surgery here in the US for a condition that their NHS consultant denied. Was fixed up in a few days here.

I also worked closely in late 90s and early 00s with a couple of Brits we had working here on 3 year training assignments. Both begged not to be sent back to the UK at the end of their term. They loved living and working here, the cheap housing, food, and gasoline, and most of all, the health care. They thought everything here was going to be like the NHS. One even had a child while here hoping to use it as an anchor baby. He also went all the way to the CEO trying to get permission to stay. Didn't work.

The only ex-pats I know that liked health care outside the US were in Singapore. But then their Central Provident Fund is based on tax-free personal accounts for health care, retirement, education, and housing. Personal responsibility - can't have that when we the social justice warriors want to continue moving us toward the socialist utopia.

Unknown said...

"Poor Inga. =("

Your poor family. How scary it must be for them living with someone with your "problems". I hope your wife has the number of the shelter and the police handy.

Hunter said...

Why is it an argument that an insurance company wouldn't have paid for the treatment? Well, the NHS certainly weren't going to to pay for it, so no points awarded.

But insurance companies sometimes do pay for experimental treatments. Or the experimental treatments may be funded from an outside source and offered to those who meet the criteria.

My brother-in-law got an experimental treatment for brain cancer. When diagnosed he was given less than 3 years to live. That was 10 years ago. I don't know how much was spent out of pocket, but I assure you nobody had to take out a half million in loans to cover the bill.

Achilles said...

I am hoping for snark to reenter the discussion. He is not as... limited...

Fabi said...

"Your stupidity and extremism are what is truly gross. You make Althouse comments threads look like a meeting place for future mass shooters. Your continuous references to Washington DC burning down at the hands of angry Trumpists and retribution for those you call "Stalinists" should make you an interesting person for the FBI. You are a creep, a loon and I think you seriously need some help for your PTSD."

This isn't the only reprehensible comment directed at Achilles from "Unknown" but it's one of the more vile. How is this comment allowed to stand?

Hunter said...

Do people who favor these socialized systems imagine that new medical technology appears fully-formed out of the aether? It takes experimentation and improvement, and it takes lots and lots of R&D money.

The United States is now developing somewhere around 60% of new drugs and treatments, a number that's been steadily rising for decades because elsewhere in the world socialized systems are cutting costs, while benefiting from the end result of all our spending. If we go the same way, who is going to take over the job?

Or are we simply content with our current abilities and there is no need to cure any more diseases or improve any more human lives? Hey, maybe people are just like anything else -- if it's broken you can't fix it, throw it out and get a new one.

n.n said...

This event has nothing to do with health care but the state

It is about the shortcomings, pitfalls, and risks of monopoly power, especially when backed by force.

hombre said...

Trumpit wrote: "... I can't shed a tear for a hopelessly brain dead infant, who was unaware of anything. You can call me heartless if you want...."

Alternatively, we can call you a gullible, typical lefty if we want.

traditionalguy said...

If they were in charge in May 1940, I bet these Socialized Brits would have surrendered to Germany rather than attempt the rescue of 350,000 soldiers at the beach of Dunkirk. It is the high cost and the small chance of success that governs these men now, you know.

Unknown said...

"This isn't the only reprehensible comment directed at Achilles from "Unknown" but it's one of the more vile. How is this comment allowed to stand?"

Far worse comments have been allowed to "stand". There are times when one has to get in the gutter and fight like the gutter rat they are opposing.

Jim at said...

This is what single payer does, leftists.
Every. Time.

Own it.

Jim at said...

"You can call me heartless if you want, but I suggest you look in the mirror."

I won't call you heartless.

I'll call you an ghoulish asshole who needs a serious adjustment of priorities.

Snark said...

"Snark said...
"Do explain. This will be insightful. I look forward to you describing how the Government cares more about the child or the child's care than the parents do.

This case is fundamentally about choice and who gets to make it. Some government doctors made a decision and the bureaucracy backed them up. The parents talked to other doctors who had a different opinion and wanted them to provide care.

Do you want the bureaucrats or the parents to make the choice about which doctors to use?"

It has literally nothing to do with a heavy handed beurocracy or - for Christsake - how Britons pay for their health care. What happened with with Charlie has played out in some form in innumerable countries inside and outside of a health care context. Any country concerned with human rights has mechanisms to advocate for the interests of those unable to advocate for themselves. Just as in the US parents in the U.K. do not have the automatic right to cause harm to their children just because they believe it is in their interests. UK doctors expressed the belief that the proposed treatment would cause Charlie pain to little or no benefit and it is their professional obligation to advocate for Charlie's best interests in court, which was the process underway. It's all painful and immeasurably sad, but it has not one thing to do with government or single payer health care.

Snark said...

"This is what single payer does, leftists.
Every. Time.

Own it."

God you're stupid. Who volunteers to be this ignorant?

Fritz said...

It takes a village to kill a child.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...

Your poor family. How scary it must be for them living with someone with your "problems". I hope your wife has the number of the shelter and the police handy.

I am playing with my 11 month old now. She loves the keyboard. We are planning her birthday party coming up in a week!

My wife and I joined the Army together. She is aware of my issues. I will be sure to show her your concern for her and the kids. We will make sure they don't grow up to b little authoritarians who want everyone to suffer under the VA like we did.

hombre said...

@Unknown: I'm no shrinking violet, but your comments directed at Achilles at 12:57 are out of line.

Snark said...

"@Unknown: I'm no shrinking violet, but your comments directed at Achilles at 12:57 are out of line."

Well it's goddamn annoying having to watch people indulge their ignorance on the back of a dying child to score a political point completely irrelevant to the situation. It is gross - in that Unknown is right.

Unknown said...

"@Unknown: I'm no shrinking violet, but your comments directed at Achilles at 12:57 are out of line."

No further out of line than comments he's directed toward myself and other people he considered "Stalinists". He has made vieled threats towards DC, Congress, and numerous people on the Left. The warrior gets some of his own medicine.

Michael K said...

" Except for the simplest cases they hated the NHS. They would use their twice/year company-paid trips home for their families to go to the doctor. "

This is causing trouble for the French system.

Large numbers of middle class Brits are moving to France, to the villages in the south. Those with more money are going into the southeast part of England, especially if they own homes there, like my friends.

The Brits that move to France are signing up for the French healthcare system but they have never paid into it. They are signing up for that portion intended for the poor, which is funded out of taxes, not payroll deductions. There are web sites teaching people how to register.

They will NOT go back to the NHS even though the ferry ride is an hour.

Unknown said...

"Well it's goddamn annoying having to watch people indulge their ignorance on the back of a dying child to score a political point completely irrelevant to the situation. It is gross - in that Unknown is right."

It is disgusting to see people jump to demonization of what they call Single Payer, by using the Gard child's case as an "example". Do your grandparents, parents or yourselves hate Medicare so much that you refuse it when offered to you?

Michael K said...

Inga, your getting too personal in your comment in that instance. You sounded almost like Ritmo there.

Achilles said...

Snark said...

It has literally nothing to do with a heavy handed beurocracy or - for Christsake - how Britons pay for their health care. What happened with with Charlie has played out in some form in innumerable countries inside and outside of a health care context. Any country concerned with human rights has mechanisms to advocate for the interests of those unable to advocate for themselves. Just as in the US parents in the U.K. do not have the automatic right to cause harm to their children just because they believe it is in their interests. UK doctors expressed the belief that the proposed treatment would cause Charlie pain to little or no benefit and it is their professional obligation to advocate for Charlie's best interests in court, which was the process underway. It's all painful and immeasurably sad, but it has not one thing to do with government or single payer health care.

So it is about bureaucracy and state control.

State doctors took control away from the parents with respect to care of the infant.

The case took months to clear the bureaucracy which obviously had an affect.

This is fundamentally about who makes health care decisions. This case is demonstrative of the kind of inhumanity and apathy that I understand personally having to deal with the VA as a primary source of care for years.

hombre said...

Snark @1:24: "God you're stupid. Who volunteers to be this ignorant?"

The lefties are confused today and think they are commenting on Politico or The Hill where ill-mannered Democrats abound.

Evidently, this one has never lived under socialized (single payer) health care where bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies - sometimes with the help of doctors, sometimes not.

Michael K said...

" Do your grandparents, parents or yourselves hate Medicare so much that you refuse it when offered to you?"

Inga, I collect Medicare now when I use the system for care. I paid into it for decades.

In fact, since I now work a couple of days a week, I am still paying into it and pay a 16% of my income since I pay the employer half, too.

The amount I have paid in the past few years working exceeds the amount I have used the past six years.

"Medicare for all," which is what the left advocates, is very unlikely to be funded by the participants.

Unknown said...

"The lefties are confused today and think they are commenting on Politico or The Hill where ill-mannered Democrats abound."

No ill mannered Republicans and or Trumpists who comment here daily, no siree.

Rick said...

Unknown said...
For those of you who deny that health insurance companies routinely denied claims such as the Gard child and want to go back to the days when heath insurance company employees were hired expressly to find ways to deny such claims, you are either stupid, have amnesia or are some sort of extremist loon like Achilles.


How obtuse can you be? We don't have to go back to those days, the entire story is that we are still in them. The only change is that the left supports denials by government whereas they claim denials by private groups prove systemic failure. Amusingly some of them aren't even smart enough to understand the problem and assert the evil of private denials even on posts highlighting government denials they support.

Unknown said...

"We don't have to go back to those days...."

Oh please, this is laughable.

Snark said...

"So it is about bureaucracy and state control.

State doctors took control away from the parents with respect to care of the infant.

The case took months to clear the bureaucracy which obviously had an affect.

This is fundamentally about who makes health care decisions. This case is demonstrative of the kind of inhumanity and apathy that I understand personally having to deal with the VA as a primary source of care for years."

No. It's about people beyond emotionally anguished parents looking out for the best interests of a fellow human being. Children are not possessions, even in terribly, awfully painful situations like this one. The legal delay may have cost Charlie a small chance to improve, or it may have saved him further extended suffering. Neither you or I know, but the point is that in a civilized country it was a question worth asking - and in terms of humanity, a principle worth fighting for - on both sides. Apathy, your VA experience, and single payer health care are all utterly irrelevant to this terribly sad situation.

MountainMan said...

" Do your grandparents, parents or yourselves hate Medicare so much that you refuse it when offered to you?"

It is not "offered". Over my 50 year work career I paid over $320K into Social Security and over $110,000 into Medicare. When you apply to get your SS payment, your are automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A. It is not "offered" and it is not optional, it is the law. You will also enroll in Medicare Part B and you will begin paying Part B premiums, which is taken out of you SS payment. I am on Part A now, but not Part B, since I am still covered under my wife's employer's plan. But when she retires I have just 60 days, I think, to apply for Part B or face substantial penalty payments for illegally delaying my enrollment.

If you want your SS money - and I do, despite the fact it was a very poor deal for me, financially - you get Medicare by law, there is no choice. The only reason I have SS and Medicare is because I am forced to have it, not because I wanted it.

Darrell said...

Now the issue is could Charlie have been saved if they didn't have to engage in lawfare during this precious time? Was their irreversible brain damage right from the start?

Snark said...

"Evidently, this one has never lived under socialized (single payer) health care where bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies - sometimes with the help of doctors, sometimes not."

And living is precisely tends to happen in those systems, given that US outcomes are invariably worse in the aggregate, despite the apparently pressing need to gets one's hip surgery a few months earlier.

Unknown said...

"No. It's about people beyond emotionally anguished parents looking out for the best interests of a fellow human being. Children are not possessions, even in terribly, awfully painful situations like this one."

What they fail to admit is that there are parents who do not make the best decisions based on their ignorance and understandable parental love for their child. There were parents who caused the dealth of their children based on erroneous, religious, or just ignorance. This child's condition caused brain damage even in utero, by the time he was born it was already too late. It would be beneficial to commenters here to educate themselves on his condition.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Achilles I agree with you and am going to clean up your 12:14 so there is no confusion on the part of our resident lefties: Achilles said "We need a government-free health care system."

Achilles said...

No. It's about people beyond emotionally anguished parents looking out for the best interests of a fellow human being.

People who want control over other people.

Children are not possessions, even in terribly, awfully painful situations like this one.

They are our children until the state takes control of them from parents. At that point they become possessions of the state and they treat them like possessions.

The legal delay may have cost Charlie a small chance to improve, or it may have saved him further extended suffering. Neither you or I know, but the point is that in a civilized country it was a question worth asking - and in terms of humanity, a principle worth fighting for - on both sides.

The legal delay was just a tool for the state to get it's way.

Apathy, your VA experience, and single payer health care are all utterly irrelevant to this terribly sad situation.

It absolutely is not. The government, the doctors, the judges, the lawyers should have never been n the way or any part of that decision. Apathy and indifference are the norm when government is involved. It is exactly the opposite when a parent is caring for their child. A parent will move heaven and earth to get what is best for their kid. The state will not.

But you will always impose yourselves and attempt to make decisions for other people.

Rick said...

Unknown said...
"We don't have to go back to those days...."

Oh please, this is laughable.


Some people are unable to understand reality. The NHS routinely denies care: routinely. Everyone knows this and the Brits (and others) accept this drawback to their system just as reasonable Americans understood it of our own system. But American progressives won't admit this now because it undermines their criticism of our private system.

People like this are living 1984. Not the totalitarianism, but the pretense facts incompatible with our politics don't exist. Inga believes we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Some people are crazy.

Snark said...

"Now the issue is could Charlie have been saved if they didn't have to engage in lawfare during this precious time? Was their irreversible brain damage right from the start?"

Yes, that is an issue. Another issue is was Charlie saved from futile suffering because parents were not automatically permitted to substitute their hope for medical reality? We will never know, so we may as well be clear on why the question was allowed to be asked - and it wasn't allowed to be asked because Britons pay for their health care through general taxation. FFS.

Rick said...

Snark said...
US outcomes are invariably worse in the aggregate,


This is false.

Unknown said...

"Infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, referred to generally as “MDDS”. Charlie suffers specifically from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS.1 "

Do some research.

Unknown said...

Are there people here who truly don't know that our own courts have intervened in parental rights when it comes to their child's medical care and have done so for many years?


"Why is there a court process?
When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What is the legal process?
GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide whether withdrawal of ventilation and providing palliative care instead of experimental treatment was in Charlie’s best interests.1

The High Court ruled this was in Charlie’s best interests on 11 April 2017.

Charlie’s parents then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 May 2017 that the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

The parents have applied to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled on 8 June 2017 that the Court of Appeal and the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

Why has the legal process lasted so long?
Legal processes take time and the courts are doing their best to expedite the process. All parties are adhering to the legal process.

The parents have raised money for the treatment, why can’t it take place?
The High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled it is not in Charlie’s best interests to receive the experimental treatment in the US.

Even if the treatment does not work for Charlie, won’t it help other children in the future?
The courts base their decisions for treatment on what is in Charlie’s best interests, not what is in the best interests of medical science.1

What about the parental rights?
Although Charlie’s parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests."

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

Achilles said...

Unknown said...

What they fail to admit is that there are parents who do not make the best decisions based on their ignorance and understandable parental love for their child. There were parents who caused the dealth of their children based on erroneous, religious, or just ignorance.

Some parent somewhere made a bad choice. That means Inga needs to tell all parents how to care for their kids. Tyrants are always taking power... for the children!

This child's condition caused brain damage even in utero, by the time he was born it was already too late. It would be beneficial to commenters here to educate themselves on his condition.

Different doctors had different opinions. There was a group of doctors that thought they could try an experimental cure that could help Charlie and provide him with a good quality of life.

But remember Inga doesn't believe in letting people make their own choices. This kid had brain damage and didn't deserve to live. He certainly would have chosen to kill himself if his parents would just leave him alone. The left is just helping people make those tough decisions!

Khesanh 0802 said...

I picked this quote from "Snark" off an Achilles response: "Any country concerned with human rights has mechanisms to advocate for the interests of those unable to advocate for themselves. Just as in the US parents in the U.K. do not have the automatic right to cause harm to their children just because they believe it is in their interests." I am surprised n. n. did not pick this one off.

Snark has really placed himself on the horns of a dilemma. Who speaks for the millions of kids who are aborted in this country even when parents think it is in their best interest? If I read what Snark is saying correctly, we are at the very least denying unborn children the right to an advocate prior to their being aborted and that means, ultimately, that we have no interest in their human rights. (And don't tell me "Planned Parenthood" advocates the rights of the unborn.)

Snark said...

Achilles, it's your own argument that is about absolute control, not mine. You would give it to parents unconditionally where others would balance it with people who may be in an objectively better position to speak for the best interests of a living, sentient being that happens to be someone's child. You don't agree, but surely you can see the merits of the argument outside of a control seeking paradigm? Wanting the best thing for your child is not the same thing as knowing what the best thing is. Painful, difficult and unintuitive, but true.

Unknown said...

Different doctors had different opinions. There was a group of doctors that thought they could try an experimental cure that could help Charlie and provide him with a good quality of life."

A good quality of life? The damage that had already been done would not have given this child a good quality of life. Absolutely ignorant and delusional.

Michael K said...

"Children are not possessions, even in terribly, awfully painful situations like this one. "

It takes a village to raise a child, especially with Hillary in charge.

I wonder if Inga has paid any attention to this case ?

Small children are amazingly resilient. I wonder if Inga ever read this book ?

Do some research, Inga, that does not support your confirmation bias.

I don't know if that treatment would have worked but the parents should have been allowed to try it.

The NHS is notorious for rationing care.


Unknown said...

Achilles is probably in favor of allowing some religious parents to use prayer to cure their child's type 1 diabetes.

Unknown said...

US Courts have long intervened in parental decisions regarding their children.

Parental decision making: Ethical Topic in Medicine

"When can parental authority to make medical decisions for their children be challenged?

Medical caretakers have an ethical and legal duty to advocate for the best interests of the child when parental decisions are potentially dangerous to the child's health, imprudent, neglectful, or abusive. As a general rule, medical caretakers and others should challenge parental decisions when those decisions place the child at significant risk of serious harm. When satisfactory resolution cannot be attained through respectful discussion and ethics consultation, seeking involvement of a State child protection agency or a court order might be necessary.

What are some examples of a decision that places a child a significant risk of serious harm?

Childhood vaccination provides an example of the kinds of factors that must be weighed in making this determination. While most physicians believe it is in a child’s best interest to receive the routine childhood vaccinations and therefore recommend them to parents, they do not generally legally challenge parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. This is because in a well-vaccinated community the risk of contracting the vaccine-preventable illness and suffering harmful consequences from the infection are quite small. However, this calculation might shift if a clinician is faced with an unvaccinated child who has suffered a puncture would from a dirty nail. In the latter case, the risk of tetanus (a serious and almost always fatal disease if not prevented) has become significant, and the provider would be justified in seeking the power of the State (through a court order or involvement of child protective services) to assure that the child receives the vaccination and treatment necessary to prevent tetanus in a high risk situation."

Delayna said...

"The lefties are really aggressive today"

Because some truth has escaped from the clutches of the Narrative and will infect the Hive.

Snark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snark said...

"Snark has really placed himself on the horns of a dilemma. Who speaks for the millions of kids who are aborted in this country even when parents think it is in their best interest? If I read what Snark is saying correctly, we are at the very least denying unborn children the right to an advocate prior to their being aborted and that means, ultimately, that we have no interest in their human rights. (And don't tell me "Planned Parenthood" advocates the rights of the unborn.)"

Abortion protestors advocate for the rights of the unborn. Outside of restrictions on late term abortions, abortion laws are not predicated on the human rights of the unborn, but the human rights of the woman carrying the child. It is one of those situations where it is a collision of rights that has to be resolved in some way, and the law currently resolves it, correctly I think, by prioritizing the rights of the woman to decide whether she will carry a pregnancy to term in her own body. So, no horns and no dilemma. That said, I hope people never stop protesting abortions.

Achilles said...

Snark said...
Achilles, it's your own argument that is about absolute control, not mine. You would give it to parents unconditionally where others would balance it with people who may be in an objectively better position to speak for the best interests of a living, sentient being that happens to be someone's child. You don't agree, but surely you can see the merits of the argument outside of a control seeking paradigm? Wanting the best thing for your child is not the same thing as knowing what the best thing is. Painful, difficult and unintuitive, but true.

No system is perfect. What we should be looking for is the system that in the aggregate produces the best outcomes.

Some parents are stupid and will make bad choices.

But the overwhelming majority will do what Charlie's did. They talked to dozens of doctors and looked for people who would give him a chance. They gathered as much information as they could and raised money from people who willingly donated it to them. They did everything they could for their child.

The state on the other hand takes money from people and does the minimum. There are good people throughout the system. But the government always has different goals. Bureaucracy has never improved. The VA and the NHS provide object lessons in how government makes decisions.

In the aggregate a system that allows individuals and doctors, plural, make decisions will be better than a system where a doctor and a bureaucrat followed by a bunch of lawyers and appeals make a decision.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
Achilles is probably in favor of allowing some religious parents to use prayer to cure their child's type 1 diabetes.

Inga makes a really stupid straw man argument for why she should make health care choices for your kids.

This doesn't even border on evil anymore.

Michael K said...

"What are some examples of a decision that places a child a significant risk of serious harm?"

Inga, your examples have no application to this subject.

We are not talking about faith healing or quacks.

Snark said...

"Thi is false."

Maybe on Fox and Breitbart. It's a well understood and long established fact in the rest of of the world. Endless data on it, but here's something recent, with pictures.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html

Unknown said...

"In the aggregate a system that allows individuals and doctors, plural, make decisions will be better than a system where a doctor and a bureaucrat followed by a bunch of lawyers and appeals make a decision."

Court ordered usurpation of parental rights regarding health care decisions happens right here in this country, not just in countries with some sort of Universal Healthcare, as you so stupidly asserted.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Unknown says

"Medical caretakers have an ethical and legal duty to advocate for the best interests of the child when parental decisions are potentially dangerous to the child's health, imprudent, neglectful, or abusive. As a general rule, medical caretakers and others should challenge parental decisions when those decisions place the child at significant risk of serious harm."

If that's the case, it makes elective abortion and those who condone it look a bit hypocritical since science is getting us closer and closer to defining "life" as beginning at conception.

@snark Protests are not the same as taking a case to court - or even as some states have tried: mandatory counseling. In the case of abortion there is no equivalent to the interference with parental rights by British Doctors and courts in Charlie's case. That the mother thinks it is in her best interest is inadequate in your, and unknown's, formulation, because there is no one who is in the room advocating for the rights of the unborn child.

Rick said...

It's a well understood and long established fact in the rest of of the world.

It's a misunderstood myth. The "data" you cite establish we are more expensive but that wasn't your claim.

Your claim is not supported by the other linked data either. For example our life expectancy is lower because we have more accidents and homicides. The effectiveness of a health system is how it improves circumstances. Country data implicitly assume the circumstances are the same and thus the output is reflective of system effectiveness. This is false. Our culture is different and this impacts the inputs.

Healthcare is also not insurance and thus the "coverage rate" is irrelevant. In fact most of the measures traditionally used to rank countries are (like this one) measures of political preference rather than healthcare. The WHO uses 5 criteria of which 3 are political.

with pictures.

I didn't realize you were a douchebag. My mistake, I'll adjust future comments accordingly.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
"In the aggregate a system that allows individuals and doctors, plural, make decisions will be better than a system where a doctor and a bureaucrat followed by a bunch of lawyers and appeals make a decision."

Court ordered usurpation of parental rights regarding health care decisions happens right here in this country, not just in countries with some sort of Universal Healthcare, as you so stupidly asserted.

Sorry to be mean but you really aren't smart enough to participate in this discussion. Didn't you promise to leave not long ago? I usually don't want people in a discussion to not participate but you are really boring and add nothing to the conversation except ignorant hatred and stupidity.

Michael K said...

The healthcare data that the left always touts is skewed in several ways.

First, we count stillbirths as births and most other countries don't.

Second, we have a violent underclass in cities that are more at risk for trauma and many poor health outcomes.

Europe is taking care of that discrepancy by importing millions of 7th century barbarians.

I wonder if they will be more honest about health outcomes than they are about rape?

Unknown said...

"Sorry to be mean but you really aren't smart enough to participate in this discussion."

You really are delusional. Your very obvious ignorance of the law and health related matters makes you, not I unqualified to participate here in this discussion. You are nothing but an extremist, who is self deluded enough to think he speaks for other commenters here. Your charge of being boring is in itself boring, tedious and is only mimicking Althouse. You are a second rate intellect who is not intelligent enough to know just how uninformed and unintelligent he really is. Now that is sad.

Snark said...

"I didn't realize you were a douchebag. My mistake, I'll adjust future comments accordingly."

I said "with pictures" because I think by this point the lack of health outcomes for US citizens commensurate with the wealth of the country is just not a point in question. It's just illogical to claim, for example, that accidents and homicides are the thing to be thinking about when the US stats for care-related preventable deaths top that list. It defies logic to expect that people who delay or avoid treatment for economic reasons, or who don't have the same options as others for preventative care, will not negatively impact outcomes in the aggregate. You can point to several problems with universal health care in other countries, but more people living longer lives is not one of them.

Snark said...

"Second, we have a violent underclass in cities that are more at risk for trauma and many poor health outcomes."

A violent underclass that I suspect exists in some part because universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right. See chicken, egg.

hombre said...

Khesanh wrote: "If that's the case, it makes elective abortion and those who condone it look a bit hypocritical since science is getting us closer and closer to defining "life" as beginning at conception."

The science of human embryology defines life as beginning at conception. That is not new.

Rick said...

I said "with pictures" because...you're a douchebag. I got that.

by this point the lack of health outcomes for US citizens commensurate with the wealth of the country is just not a point in question.

Groupthink in action. I'm sure it's entirely coincidental the largest beneficiaries of government control are the very people creating these measurements. I wonder why these obvious points not in question aren't substantiated by appropriately designed studies.

It defies logic to expect that people who delay or avoid treatment for economic reasons, or who don't have the same options as others for preventative care, will not negatively impact outcomes in the aggregate

And yet that's exactly what the best designed study in medical history showed. So maybe the lesson is there are certain things that impact care that progressives are concerned about and these are generally offset by factors impacting care you aren't concerned with and therfore make no effort to measure. The truth is that even though you insist on pretending it cannot happen people without insurance do receive regular care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment

You can point to several problems with universal health care in other countries, but more people living longer lives is not one of them.

If universal healthcare were a clear benefit you wouldn't have to result to irrelevant statistics to make your case.

Snark said...

"We are not talking about faith healing or quacks."

No, but there was a legitimate difference of medical opinion. Unfortunately you can't solve that with a scalpel fight in the parking lot, so court it was. It's most comfortable for the vast majority of us to feel like we should always side with hope, and shuffle the possible consequences of futility out of mind, but the fact is that that can be selfish. We can't as a society automatically acquiesce to something just because it's going to make the parents feel better, and in that make us all feel better.

Michael K said...

A violent underclass that I suspect exists in some part because universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right. See chicken, egg.

What an interesting reply !

I doubt you understand how revealing that was.

"universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right"

You really think that is the cause of the pathology in the black underclass ?

How interesting.

How do you explain the very similar pathology in the white underclass in the British midlands ? They all have the NHS.

Read one of Theodore Dalrymple's books.

I know you won't because the culture clash would be too painful.

Snark said...

"If universal healthcare were a clear benefit you wouldn't have to result to irrelevant statistics to make your case."

And if having a quasi health care meritocracy in a wealthy country was not morally and economically dysfunctional, there wouldn't be a need for the glut of "irrelevant" stats to which I can "resort".

Rick said...

And if having a quasi health care meritocracy in a wealthy country was not morally and economically dysfunctional, there wouldn't be a need for the glut of "irrelevant" stats to which I can "resort".



You probably can't see the wishful thinking embedded in your comment. But we can.

hombre said...

Snark: "A violent underclass that I suspect exists in some part because universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right. See chicken, egg."

Violent crime is a result of the government not "conferring" universal dignity. Makes perfect sense, right?

Snark said...

"You really think that is the cause of the pathology in the black underclass ?"

Woah! Who is revealing? Who knew your use of the term underclass was supposed to be read as a "black underclass". Anyway, inequity is at the root of any underclass I would think, and it seems obvious on its face that countries that provide universal basic coverage are sending a different message about the fundamental worth of any given human being that has the potential to echo through a lot of outcomes.



cubanbob said...

What is the legal process?
GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide whether withdrawal of ventilation and providing palliative care instead of experimental treatment was in Charlie’s best interests.1

The High Court ruled this was in Charlie’s best interests on 11 April 2017.

Charlie’s parents then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 May 2017 that the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

The parents have applied to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled on 8 June 2017 that the Court of Appeal and the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity."

Dying is in the best interest of a small child? If the mother didn't want to kill him in the womb when she had the right to do so why is the state now so concerned with his "dignity"? The funds were raised to bring him to the US where doctors who are also competent said the kid had a chance. It was the delay by the State that foreclosed the child's shot at life. Kids aren't given doses of pain medications in the womb to render them incapable of feeling the pain of being killed by the abortionist so this whole pain sparring argument rings hollow.

hombre said...

Snark wrote: "And living is precisely tends (sic.) to happen in those systems, given that US outcomes are invariably worse in the aggregate, despite the apparently pressing need to gets one's hip surgery a few months earlier."

Crikey, what are you smoking? "... US outcomes are invariably worse ...." Absolute Bollocks!! Do you see Americans going to Canada or the U.K. for treatment in the normal course of events? Of course not! Is the reverse true? Yes.

The "apparently pressing need" to expedite hip replacements is called "pain" or, alternatively, "disability."

I spent seven years in a "single payer" Commonwealth country. You don't know what you are talking about.

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Snark said...

"A violent underclass that I suspect exists in some part because universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right. See chicken, egg."

Democrats run all of those places. Are they the chicken or the egg?

Snark said...

"Violent crime is a result of the government not "conferring" universal dignity. Makes perfect sense, right?"

Stop it with the straw man. It could catch fire and probably doesn't have coverage, and that would just be alarming in an emergency room.

It's the country as a society, not the goverment, that makes the decision to, yes, confer an element of universal dignity through universal access to health care. It's what first world countries do, with one exception. The only reasonable argument against it in the US that I can see is one of collective identity. Adopting socialized medicine would significantly shift a core American principle of self reliance and individualist ideas of merit, and unavoidably alter the character of the country over time. If that's the argument, then make that argument. It will relieve people from the unsupportable economic, moral and outcome based stuff, and all those "irrelevant" statistics.

hombre said...

Cubanbob wrote: 'Dying is in the best interest of a small child? If the mother didn't want to kill him in the womb when she had the right to do so why is the state now so concerned with his "dignity"?'

It's what the "progressive" parties of death are about here and abroad. As you imply, it has nothing to do with dignity. It's about power and money.

Snark said...

"Democrats run all of those places. Are they the chicken or the egg?"

I don't know. When things don't improve over generations, somebody is doing something wrong.

Rick said...


Stop it with the straw man.

Nobody could invent a strawman more ridiculous than your stated belief: that American societal violence is caused by our lack of universal health insurance.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snark said...

"Crikey, what are you smoking? "... US outcomes are invariably worse ...." Absolute Bollocks!! Do you see Americans going to Canada or the U.K. for treatment in the normal course of events? Of course not! Is the reverse true? Yes.

The "apparently pressing need" to expedite hip replacements is called "pain" or, alternatively, "disability."

I spent seven years in a "single payer" Commonwealth country. You don't know what you are talking about."

What kind of arguments is that for outcomes? People of means may go to the US to get services more quickly than they can get in their own countries, but all that proves is that many people will do whatever they can to be healthy and well because it's scary not to be. It says nothing about whether they are meaningfully better off over time for their decision to spend money for services they could have gotten for no extra charge at home. I recognize pain and a reduced quality of life is not a small thing, but it is possible to embrace the morality of living with that in theory so that everybody has the same access as you, and to see the practicality of universal health care when you can't predict the future, or its medical costs.

hombre said...

Snark wrote: "What kind of arguments is that for outcomes?"

Oh, sorry. I thought when you wrote, "... US outcomes are invariably worse...", that you meant "... US outcomes are invariably worse ...."

Can't imagine why.

hombre said...

Blogger hombre said...
'Snark: "A violent underclass that I suspect exists in some part because universal dignity is not conferred through things like healthcare as a human right. See chicken, egg."

Violent crime is a result of the government not "conferring" universal dignity. Makes perfect sense, right?'

Snark responded: "Stop it with the straw man."

There is no stretch there. Evidently "straw man", like violence and single payer health care, is beyond your ken.

n.n said...

Extraordinary woman and man, mother and father, who defied the secular faith, with hope to change the outcome of evolution and anthropogenic selection. A struggle that that motivates the positive progress of humanity.

That said, this event casts a light, once again, on the mechanics of Choice at the twilight fringe, exercised by a minority in a monopoly (e.g. single-payer) state.

Snark said...

Et al: It is a stretch, and a straw man, and also transparently lame horseshit, to imply that my argument is that a violent underclass is largely caused by a lack of governmentally conferred human dignity, which is in turn largely caused by a lack of universal health care. Fuck off and don't waste my time if that is your level of interest in my thoughts here.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Curiously, Snark, I thought that was almost exactly what you said and defended.

Snark said...

Well, it's not. Read harder, or ignore me, or ask for clarification - as you wish.

hombre said...

Snark wrote: "Fuck off and don't waste my time if that is your level of interest in my thoughts here."

There's the rub, Snark. If we show an interest in your words - we can't read your thoughts - you deny them and get pissed off. We understand. Nobody likes to get called on the bullshit they wrote just a few minutes earlier. After all, consistency and critical thinking aren't all they are cracked up to be.

And: "Read harder, or ignore me, or ask for clarification - as you wish."

That's a lot of trouble to go to for comic relief.

Rick said...

Snark said...
Well, it's not. Read harder


Apparently we're supposed to understand it causes sufficient violence to account for the observed differences between us and countries with universal health insurance but doesn't actually cause violence.

Makes total sense.

Michael K said...

Who knew your use of the term underclass was supposed to be read as a "black underclass".

You fucking idiot !

Did you read the next sentence?

Jezuz These lefties are liars and pathological ones at that.

How do you explain the very similar pathology in the white underclass in the British midlands ? They all have the NHS.

That was the next sentence you asshole.

Michael K said...

I'm done with "snark."

Almost as bad as Ritmo.

Popville said...

AllenS already said it best: "Never let a doctor(s) stop you from getting a second opinion."

Bad Lieutenant said...


Well, it's not. Read harder, or ignore me, or ask for clarification - as you wish.

I should beg you for clarification? You're not going to volunteer it, given that you have been so tragically misunderstood by, er, everyone here?

Also, that is not the universe of possible responses to you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The left is just helping people make those tough decisions!

7/24/17, 2:27 PM

I note that the left's decisions in these tough cases always favor death. They truly are the culture of death.