Hillary’s Done, But Universal Health Care Proposals Live On

Pajamas Media ^ | August 28, 2008 | Rebecca Walberg

[AJKauf]

Canadians pay significantly higher taxes than Americans do. Many attempt to justify this by pointing to the services with which Canadians are provided. Comparing the quality of healthcare north of the border with that in the U.S. makes it clear that Canadians aren’t getting their money’s worth. While all insurers require that the treatments they fund be appropriate for the patients in question, in Canada government healthcare administrators have taken this a dystopian step further and now decide which people are deserving of treatment.

The most recent and outrageous example is the case of Samuel Golubchuk, an elderly Winnipeg man who died of natural causes in June, despite the best efforts of some of his caregivers to bring his life to an earlier close. Admitted to the hospital in fall of 2007 after contracting pneumonia, Golubchuk required a feeding tube and a ventilator. In November, his doctors decided to withdraw this care, despite the wishes of Golubchuk’s children and the patient’s own religious beliefs, which forbade the hastening of death....

[socialismisinsidious]

Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.

[machogirl]

scary, some govt. hack decides who is worthy and who isn’t

[imintrouble]

Did the article mention the waiting list problem?

[djsherin]

Socialized medicine is a hall mark of a capitalist free market economy!

...oh wait. No it isn’t.

Socialized medicine is another chunk of our liberty the government seeks to take. Not to mention the money required to fund it.

[justiceseeker93]

Excellent summary of the pitfalls of nationalized health care in the posted article. Although HRC is out of contention for the presidency, the possibility that an Obama administration might introduce the essentials of her inane plan remains. His plan isn’t all that far from hers. McCain’s ideas on health care are much more compatible with maintaining a higher standard of care.

[potlatch]

HILL-CARE by any other name, is just the same..

 

 

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[MrB]

I presented this problem to a socialist medicine advocate -

socialist medical systems throughout the world have supply problems, quality problems, waiting problems, and rationing.

Are you saying that the people who are implementing those programs in other countries are stupid, or that those who intend to implement them here are somehow so smart that they’ll make it work where it hasn’t anywhere else?

[CottonBall]

Did the article mention the waiting list problem?

Or that in countries like France, a high percentage of the people also have private medical insurance (something like 70-80% I think the figure was). If socialized medicine was so great, they certainly wouldn't need anything else.

However, I think what the Dems have in store for us is even worse than socialized medicine. They want to implement a system where some people get government handouts while others keep their own private insurance. ie., those with good jobs get to pay higher taxes so pay for medical care for others. At least in socialized countries, the taxpayers get something for their tax money, as little as it might be.

[CottonBall]

Excellent question. What was their response?

[bamahead]

Thanks! Did you see this one also?

WHO Study Backs Universal Health Care:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070113/posts

[MrB]

You have to remember that leftists are inherently immune to logic,

so they usually respond with “we could make it work here”,

and avoiding the question of whether previous implementations were by inferior people or if we have such greatly superior people here.

But it does make them pause for a second or two before they “put their hands over their ears and spout the leftist talking point”.