Health care dilemma

Regarding “What to do in the case of little Charlie Gard,” columnist Charles Krauthammer presents a cogent case for not treating Charlie because treatment might cause the child suffering without any chance that the treatment would even work. However, he ends up by saying that the British government should pay to treat Charlie because the parents’ decision should be supreme. What would Krauthammer say if the same situation occurred in the United States? Would he think that our government should pay to treat the child in England? Of course not.

If Congress succeeds in repealing Obamacare and instituting Trumpcare, by their own admission, cheap, substandard plans would be available that would not only deny care for a baby like Charlie, but even for babies with expensive but curable conditions. Our government would certainly not pay if the private insurance companies failed to do so. Then it would be up to the parents to find the money on their own from their own savings to pay the enormous medical bills.

If Krauthammer really cared about the convictions of parents to protect their children at any cost, he would support a health care system that places compassion above enormous profit; he would support a system that does not bankrupt parents. At least the parents in England can go to the courts to request that their medical bills be paid for. In our country, those same parents would have to hold fundraisers and ultimately file for bankruptcy just to pay for the first round of any treatment. Nancy Rilling, Houston