Posted on 08/03/2018 5:27:42 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
If you’ve followed the saga of Baby Oliver – the British baby with the life-threatening heart tumor – you’ll be glad to know that the good ‘ol U.S. of A. came to this young Brit’s rescue. But how it happened is an amazing saga – and also very instructive to some left-wing American politicians … or at least to their constituents.
Oliver Cameron, in case you weren’t following the limited coverage here in America, is a baby boy born with cardiac fibroma – a large, non-cancerous tumor on the heart. Without surgery, his life would be measured in mere months.
But the National Health Service (NHS), the U.K.’s socialized health care system, informed Oliver’s parents that they didn’t have a single doctor who could do the surgery. Instead, he would be placed on a waiting list for a heart transplant that – even if it came to pass – would probably not extend his life to adulthood.
That’s when his parents, Lydia and Tim, began looking for alternatives. Eventually, they found an answer – in America. Boston Children’s Hospital had successfully performed such a surgery, and the doctors there said Oliver was a good candidate for the same surgery.
(Excerpt) Read more at familypolicyalliance.com ...
More:
Problem solved, right? Hardly. First, the government denied the request to cover the cost of Oliver having surgery in Boston. Then, they denied the request to have the Boston surgeons perform the surgery in the U.K.
So Lydia and Tim took the bull by the horns and began raising donations through an online site to cover the quarter-million-dollar cost. By the time they had raised two-thirds of the money, the NHS decided that they needed to fund the surgery to avoid a public relations nightmare – especially in the aftermath of the death of Charlie Gard, the British boy for whom the NHS had denied free offers of help from international sources, including the Vatican.
The surgery was a complete success. Baby Oliver is reportedly doing exceptionally well.
And more:
But his entire episode – particularly on the heels of the Charlie Gard disaster – raises serious questions about why some American politicians want to bring the same, single-payer, government-run health system to our shores.
From Boulder congressman Jared Polis (who is running for Colorado governor) to the latest socialist sensation, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Bronx, the Left’s calls for a government takeover of medicine in America are becoming widespread.
But if that happens, where will the Baby Olivers of the world go? The calls for government-run, single-payer healthcare are cloaked in the language of compassion. But as Baby Oliver and Charlie Gard remind us, the real result is cold-hearted government control.
“But if that happens, where will the Baby Olivers of the world go?”
Easy answer - they die. It’s actually a PERFECTLY CONSISTENT position of the left. If they’re fine killing the baby 1 month before it’s born, then why would they have a problem with killing the baby 1 month after? Or 1 year after? Either you’re into that stuff, or not.
So true.
I wouldn’t compare this to Charlie Gard. Little Charlie had a terminal condition. This boy had an operable heart defect.
It looks like the parents were taking matters into their own hands to pay for the surgery, by soliciting donations and so forth. That’s how it should be. Why should the taxpayers be on the hook for a surgery that costs $250,000? Let people who want and choose to help out do so.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Socialism has never ever worked any where in the world, throughout the entire history of the world. Glad God and this boy’s parents prevailed.
I think the writer of the article was bringing together the fact that both babies were under the auspices of the government controlled healthcare system in Britain.
“But the National Health Service (NHS), the U.K.’s socialized health care system, informed Oliver’s parents that they didn’t have a single doctor who could do the surgery. Instead, he would be placed on a waiting list for a heart transplant that – even if it came to pass – would probably not extend his life to adulthood. “
You’re right = the parents eventually took control of the situation or at least tried to. But the issue was that the British government run healthcare system originally was dictating what could be done for this baby.
You’re welcome. And you’re right!
You never ever want to be a line item in the govt ledger.
Because you no longer a free human being, you are simply an expense to the govt.
They initially said they didn’t have a doctor? and then found a doctor?
The LEFT lies. Always.
And they did it because of he bad PR not for any love for the boy.
Duh, because they are forced to participate in National Health Care. They all pay for it with their tax dollars and because its such a dreadful system care is rationed, waiting times are measured in 6 months to years and babies are denied life saving surgeries that would be covered with traditional insurance.
Exactly.
We all have a terminal condition.
Charlie Gard should not have been allowed by UK know-it-alls in white coats to wither away and slowly die, by design, simply because his condition was deemed untreatable. From a humane and moral perspective, the situations of Charlie Gard and Baby Oliver are indistinguishable.
Blessings and prayers for Baby Oliver and his parents, and to all the Charlie Gards and Terry Schiavos of the world, now and to come.
I was hoping someone would be able to post that photo! Thanks very much. :-)
Having retired after close to 30 years at a world famous hospital...and knowing something about American politics and politicians...I feel that I'm well qualified to answer this.
And yes,the answer is simple: they do so because they know that the "typical" American doesn't have the first clue what the world of medicine is about (and,therefore,might accept the "fairness" of single payer) *and* they know that they'll exempt themselves just as they did when passing "ObamaCare".
I’m an American, American-trained, and I’ve worked in the NHS.
To talk about a nationalized health system in this country modelled on the NHS is apples and oranges.
The Brits place a very high value on universal access free of cost at the point of access. It’s VERY important to them. To achieve it, the hospitals and surgeries (private offices) were seized by the Crown in 1948 after an election in which the Commons majority promised to do exactly that.
They also realized that, to have this, there had to be a budget and that with unlimited demand and finite resources, some people would not be treated or would not receive the latest technology, drugs, or surgery.
The people in this country do not place a high value on these things. So, we have made other choices, one of which was to borrow $20 trillion dollars and to print many more so that everyone could have everything.
Thanks for that explanation.
So how has that worked out for the Brits in your opinion?
How has it worked out for them?
I guess it depends on what you mean.
They got what they wanted, they love it, it is the most popular institution in the UK, and it is politically untouchable. So, you could say it was a success.
Like all socialist schemes, though, it doesn't age all that well.
Reinvestment of profits can't happen, because there are none. So any improvements or up-to-dating has to be in the annual budget.
What they took over in 1948 was enormously wealthy - in physical plant, yes, but also in accumulated knowledge and human capital.
Running down Zimbabwe was fast, because they were starting from such a low point. UK medicine, on the other hand, had much, much more resources to dispose of.
Medicare's promise in the US in 1965 to pay without limit for anything useful or potentially useful triggered an explosion of invention. This did not happen in the UK, so there is a growing gap.
But, to be fair, the NHS is not $20 trillion in debt and they can choose from our smorgasbord of wonderful inventions what they favor most and what they can afford.
On the whole, in my opinion, it's good for them, because it suits them.
An anecdote might prove the point.
In March of 1976, I was working in Oncology at a major London teaching hospital. My landlady came to see me with a hard, hard lump in her neck, almost certainly cancer.
She'd gone to her GP who got her an appointment in my department - in October.
I told her to come in with me tomorrow and I would get her in to see the consultant.
I will never forget the expression on her face, like I had slapped her. "Oh, NO! That wouldn't be right! (to jump the line).
For people like that, it's a great success.
I don't know too many Americans like my landlady.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.