Haden Choiniere
Jul 10, 2017 · 4 min read

I haven’t seen nationalized healthcare proposed in any serious way (especially by progressives). Universal healthcare (which is being proposed and has a lot of support), on the other hand, à la France or Germany, not the UK, has some very real merits. Many people confuse the two, and they are not the same. Nationalized healthcare, as you described, does indeed make those kinds of decisions the government’s pervue. Healthcare facilites are, in many cases, owned and operated by the government. Universal healthcare is a system where the health insurance is pooled by the government and distributed to private healthcare facilities, much like we would do with regular insurance, only in this case, government as a whole gets to negotiate on behalf of the ‘consumer/patient’ who would otherwise have little power against healthcare companies (I won’t get into the vast network of people and companies that exist outside of simply the healthcare facilities themselves because it’s too complicated here, but there is a vast network of people who expect profit, and are entirely unnecessary in patient outcomes) that can and do jack up prices (for various reasons). As someone who has lived under both so-called free-market health care and universal healthcare, I can say I would choose the latter any day, happily and enthusiastically.

To address another point, your interpretation of the parents’ motivations, which I believe is correct, (“Not every parent would want to do what Charlie’s parents are attempting, but there are many — maybe even the majority — who would spend their last penny, beg on street corners, take every chance, and explore every possibility just to find something that would give them a little more time with their child.”) is incredibly selfish. They want more time with their child, whom they love, and rightly so. But what is best for him? His condition is, as of today, incurable. He cannot see, hear, move, or even breath on his own. An experimental treatment would improve his condition, but to what extent and at what cost? Rare is the medical treatment that won’t leave some damage in its place. It’s usually a matter of weighing outcomes: which does least damage, the disease or the treatment? Would improvement mean he could breath on his own, see, hear, move? What would be the outcome in a year? Five? Ten? Would he ever be able to live any kind of worthwhile life? They are philosophical questions for the most part, certainly not something to be legislated, as we all probably feel different ways, but I don’t think the parents are taking into account what Charlie is going through, or what is best, in the long term, for him. That’s part of why we need things like the hospital, in this case, to step in. It wasn’t the government making the decision, it was the medical professionals in the hospital who then had to turn to the government for enforcement.

Ultimately in any society, whether nationalized or otherwise, someone is going to determine when a life is too costly to maintain in these conditions. A free-market insurance company is just as likely to deny care for a patient after doctors determine there is nothing to be done (indeed, many plans don’t cover experimental treatments, especially ones in early stages, as this is). After all, they deny prescription coverage to people who need those medications to survive (as only one example of denials that abound). What’s the difference between a private insurance company making that decision and the government, other than we get to choose our government to a certain extent (the majority does, or should)? For all we claim a free-market system, we don’t have much choice between insurers. In many markets, there are only two or three at most who offer in a specific area.

There is no such thing as unlimited resources. Using those limited resources on the hope a treatment will work (and it is far from likely in this case) takes away resources from other children (or patients in general, but children tend to bring out people’s sentimentality) who could be saved with much greater chances of success. The same choice would have to be made, regardless of the healthcare system, even if the parents could afford continued treatment. It would not be entirely up to the parents to do whatever they wanted on his behalf. There are always other factors. As it is, the UK taxpayers are footing the bill. In our system, fellow insurees would be the ones paying in terms of premiums, higher the more people we try to maintain life for in these conditions. Shouldn’t they have a say? (I’m not necessarily saying they should, simply posing the question as something we have to seriously consider.)

As an addendum I should add that despite my arguments, I am against nationalized healthcare. I support universal healthcare, and the differences here seem to be blurred when you talk of progressive agenda.

    Haden Choiniere

    Written by

    Writer, historian, occasional baker