So sad . . . My husband somehow just heard about poor little Alfie and his desperate mommy and daddy this morning and he’s all broken up. Pisses me off… THIS is your life/death on socialized medicine. I hope GB is proud. I hope the Bernie squadron is awake for this one. Please stop assuming WE are the heartless ones here. We hate socialized medicine because we are old enough to know better. It’s a “little” thing called history that is apparently out of fashion and irrelevant to oh-so wise socialist/fascists.
This is little Alfie Evans; condemned to die by British judges because he’s not worth treating. The Italian government has a medical jet waiting for him at the nearest airport to bring him to his new home in Italy, but British authorities will not let his mommy and daddy take him from the hospital even to die–let alone to receive treatment in Italy. Poland wants this little family, too. But the British judge has decreed he must die–whether by suffocation or if he insists on breathing, by starvation. SHAME. The police have warned that social media posts are being watched and may be acted upon. IOW, "Not only must you NOT attempt to save this child, you must NOT dare complain about the decree of death for his high crime of not being perfect.
THIS is the face of socialized medicine.
As DaveB indicated, with Alfie Evans, it is “Déjà vu all over again!” (to borrow a phrase from Yankees legend Yogi Berra):
“Donald Trump offers help for critically ill baby Charlie Gard: White House staff say they have spoken to British family who lost long legal fight to take son to US for treatment”
We remember 1 Timothy 2:2:
“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority.”
And,
“Our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood,” and “The weapons of our warfare are NOT carnal.” Ephesians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 10:4.
There’s been quite a bit of anti-socialism expressed on this thread, as if it were the greatest evil, or at least one of the greatest.
The well-known Russian novelist Leo Tolstoi (1828-1910) was a believer in socialism in the sense of doing everything in common, but one who was strongly opposed to Marxism. He died before the Communist system was established in Russia, but he had some interesting things to say against Marxism which eventually led to Communism. His comments were quite perceptive. The following quote is from the August 3 entry in his “Journal of Leo Tolstoi”:
-
It is absolutely clear that it is much more profitable to do everything in common, but the reasoning about this is insufficient. If the reasoning were sufficient then it would have happened long ago. The fact that it is seen among Capitalists is unable to convince people to live in common. Besides the reasoning that this is profitable, it is necessary that the heart be ready to live like that (that the world point of view should be such that it would harmonise with the indications of the reason), but this is not so and will not be so until the desires of the heart are changed, i.e., the world point of view of people.
-
Even if that which Marx predicted should happen, then the only thing that will happen, is that despotism will be passed on. Now the capitalists rule, but then the directors of the working people will rule.
-
The mistake of the Marxists (and not only they, but the whole materialistic school) lies in the fact that they do not see that the life of humanity is moved by the growth of consciousness, by the movement of religion, by an understanding of life becoming more and more clear, general, meeting all problems and not by an economic cause.
-
The most unthought thing, the error, of the theory of Marx is in the supposition that capital will pass from the hands of private people into the hands of the government, and from the government, representing the people, into the hands of the workers…
1 Like
Good stuff.
Initially, I thought Tolstoi’s Plowman Story was told by Tolstoi himself in this 1908 recording. But today, I found out it was told by John Wanamaker. But it’s well worth a listen.
Yes, here’s the BBC news report on it at Alfie Evans: Legal battle toddler dies. And here’s some recent articles…from the Patheos Catholic newsletter…at The Uses of Alfie Evans and What Happens When We Abandon Subsidiarity #AlfieEvans.
On the other hand… I don’t believe the US health system… is the “best in the world”. And neither does the World Health Organization…via their rankings, of world health systems. And I also feel conventional medicine…can benefit from partnerships… with complimentary and spiritual, medical and healing systems.
The Native American perspective is this. The medical doctors and hospitals, can keep the person alive. But the spirit still lives and is aware of what’s going one. Sometimes with the help, of Native American medicine men and women…the spirit can be guided back - into the body. Or they can continue with their journey towards death. And if they come back…more often than not…they can make a full recovery.
And there MIGHT be other options. 
Alfie was never even diagnosed. How dare the fascist govt deathcare system decree that he shall NOT be taken to Italy where the church and government stood ready to do their best for him? AND if you think that could not happen here, why are you so arrogant, to think we are so much better than literally everyone else in the world? I agree that cooperative living would be far better… if WE (and by that I mean ALL of we) were better. But we are not better. We are just as flawed as all the other people of the world. Socialism is ultimately a recipe for Alfie.
Quote
"But the court ruled that it was in Alfie’s “best interests” to die. Doctors had told the court he might “be able to muster just a handful of breaths and survive just a few minutes if ventilation were completely stopped.” In fact, he kept fighting to live for five full days without life support. A phalanx of police officers was posted outside his hospital, holding the child hostage in order to ensure that his mom and dad did not try to take him away while the death sentence was carried out.
This is, quite simply, tyrannical. It is one thing for a judge to decide that British taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of what doctors in its national health service have concluded is futile treatment. Under a single-payer system, resources are limited and care is rationed (which is why we don’t want socialized medicine here in America). But where does a British court get the right to deny the child life-extending treatment abroad when someone else is willing to pay for it? Who gave the British state the right to determine what kind of life is worth living and for how long?
The culture of death is on the march across Europe. CBS News recently reported that Iceland was on the verge of “eliminating” Down syndrome, not by some medical miracle but because the country’s abortion rate for Down syndrome babies is close to 100 percent. Now, with Alfie Evans and previously Charlie Gard, British courts have ordered the death of disabled children over the objections of parents." end of quote - Marc Thiessen
Yep. When a government determines life and death, it indeed parallels Hitler’s regime in deciding to carry out “the final solution” of the “Jewish problem” in Germany.
However, it’s interesting that, before putting them to death, Hitler first offered to send the Jews to other countries. However, no country was willing to take them except the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica. Thus all the rest of the world is guilty of the Holocaust—including Canada and United States.
I did not know that, Don!
I checked out the Holocaust Museum online and of course, you are right. Here’s a short excerpt:
"-The United States admitted between 180,000 and 225,000 refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution between 1933 and 1945. Although the United States permitted more refugees to enter than any other nation, thousands more could have been granted US immigration visas had the quotas been filled during this period.
The economic devastation of the Great Depression in the United States, combined with a commitment to neutrality and deeply held prejudices against immigrants, limited Americans’ willingness to welcome refugees. Neither President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration nor the US Congress adjusted America’s complicated and bureaucratic immigration process to aid the hundreds of thousands of refugees trying to flee Europe. Instead, the US State Department implemented new restrictive measures during this period that made it more difficult for immigrants’ to enter the United States. Although the United States issued far fewer immigration visas than it could have during this period, it did admit more refugees fleeing Nazism than any other nation in the world."
Interesting and sad, Paidion. 
I’m ashamed to learn this. I wasn’t actually thinking about the Nazis, though. I had in mind the generic meaning of “fascist”—ie: authoritarian government.
"If they wanted a deal that would survive Mr. Obama’s grip on power, they ought to have made the thing in the light of day, not based it on Iranian lies and secret side-deals, not bribed the mullahs with pallet-loads of untraceable cash delivered by aircraft in the middle of the night*, made Iran commit to no-notice inspections, made them forswear their support of terror and destabilization of the region, made them actually sign the damn thing (which they never did), not have squashed ongoing investigations into Hezbollah drug and money-laundering for fear of irking Tehran, and — above all — sought the consent of the Senate, as the Framers intended.
The arrangement President Trump has now terminated was never an agreement by the United States, in accordance with the Constitution’s prescriptions for entering into such things, and so it was never binding upon the United States. It was nothing more than a smarmy little “understanding” between a man temporarily in control of a nation he does not love (and his Iranian-born Rasputin) and a ruthless enemy permanently committed to our destruction. The man and his cadre having been to our astonishingly good fortune ejected from power, his crooked little backroom deals and his eight-year legacy of cramping and maleficent executive orders may now be swept into the gutter. Thank you, Mr. Trump, for doing so."
-Malcolm Pollack
1 Like
Whether we like the Iran Obama deal or not - it was in partnership, with the other 5 important players. Which I believe are France, Germany, the U.K., Russia and China. Now if Mr. Trump can negotiate a GOOD North Korean deal…that the UN, Asia, Europe, China and Russia - buy into. Then all is forgiven. Even If Mr. Trump starts the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse…a North Korean deal, would redeem him.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”-- Bernard M. Baruch
1 Like
That ‘partnership’ was a feckless appeasement strategy, and I applaud the Donald for the courage to name it and unclaim it.
Not like it was working, anyhow…
1 Like
And this is a good thing as well - hostages returned, and we did not have to give pallets full of money for them 
1 Like
Hum! I’m in the health club today. And the TV is turned to Fox news. And they are talking, about the rising gas prices. Which started occurring - they said…after Trump announced he’s pulling out, of the Iran nuclear deal. I think the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - are closer than we think. We need a song to address this.
But I hold out hope. Perhaps he will be successful, with the North Korean summit? And/or renegotiate with Iran?
Years ago, during a similar situation, the pupils in my nephew’s public school class excitedly said to him, “Mr. B____, did you hear the good news? The ostriches have come home!”
1 Like