Yeah, we REALLY want "universal, single payer healthcare" ala the NHS in Britain or Canada...that way WE can look forward to such a debate as is occurring in Jolly ol England.

"Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors" reads the headline....DOCTORS mind you, not just faceless bureaucrats, but those that are charged by their medical oaths to "first, do no harm". If those that are the most likely to be of succor to those in ill health publicly espouse such an argument, just how likely is it that those in the myriad layers of governmental agencies will be more sympathetic?

Remember that "those that pay the piper;controll the tune". We here in the U.S. take our health care all too much for granted.
It's true that lack of insurance can be troublesome, BUT emergency health care is never witheld from anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, and in most cases of serious ailment, treatment is given first and questions about payment come after the fact.

Under the NHS system, even those that are otherwise healthy and in the prime category for best results from treatment are, in many cases, put off for treatment untill the condition has become much more difficult (and expensive) to treat or even becomes inevitably fatal.

Even the ability to be CAPABLE of treating some illnesses is curtailed without the profit motive spurring R & D in techniques and investment in equipment.

Take an MRI machine for example. Here in Indianapolis, the largest hospital in the city, Methodist, possesses FOUR such machines....and every other hospital of any size whatsoever has at least one....there exist only three such machines in the entire Eastern half of Canada, leading to waits of up to 18 months just to recieve a diognostic treatment.
Bear in mind that most of the ailments that a MRI is most usefull in diagnosing are extremely time sensative if effective treatment is to be afforded to the patient. While we may decry the lack of insurance to thousands of people here in the U.S., the fact is that many of those people conciously choose to forego coverage, choosing to use the money for other needs/wishes instead. If you're in your twenties and in good health, with a finite amount of income, you may just believe it is a wise choce to buy a new car instead of investing in a healthcare plan,and the nanny-stateists are fostering that choice in telling that twentysomething that government should be responsible for your health care, not you.

Folks, you have to remember that Freedom is NEVER free, and with that freedom comes the RESPONSIBILITY to provide for your own needs and not look to the government to be your be all and end all provider.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 08:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.