-By Warner Todd Huston
Now even The New York Times is admitting that Obamacare means rationing and also means a cutting back of Medicare proving that fears of America’s elderly are “not entirely irrational.” The Times is admitting that the original guarantee that Medicare is forever and that the government won’t interfere between patient and doctor is fading fast.
Again, as we’ve said in the past, one of the chief ways we can judge if we should allow Obama and his Democrats succeed in forcing a government takeover of our healthcare is to look to see how government controlled healthcare works in other countries — or doesn’t, as the case may be. We’ve had many examples already of how badly nationalized healthcare works in England and Canada, and here are two more.
Let’s start with our northern neighbors who, it seems, flood across the border seemingly on a monthly basis to get their healthcare here in the U.S. because they can’t get it in a timely manner in their own country.
An article in the Detroit Free Press details how Canadians cross the boarder because wait times for treatment in Canada are often longer than expected life spans once diagnosed with a medical problem. Not only are wait times long, but often times services aren’t even available in Canada and citizens there have no choice but to come to the U.S. for medical care.
And can we recall that Canadian citizens pay exorbitant taxes for their “free” healthcare there? Yet they come here and happily pay for it. Of course, the choice is suffering and dying because they cannot get serviced in their own country.
Speaking of not getting serviced, the British national healthcare system has decided in one case that Alzheimer’s isn’t a real disease and, therefore, not eligible to be paid for by the government plan.
The UK Telegraph tells us of the horrible plight of one Judith Roe, 74, denied medical service because the government decided that Alzheimer’s was not an approved disease that would be paid for by government. The NHS decided that her Alzheimer’s was a “social disease” not a “health” one.
They’ve since reversed themselves and said that it is covered again, but the fact that government could deny this poor woman six years of care is appalling.
So, how did this happen? Was it just a lone mistake? Not at all. You see, payments are decided by government on the basis of “health” or “social” problems, the first one is covered the later is not. The government has every incentive NOT to pay for healthcare if it can get away with it. So, often times poor British elderly are told their problems are not really a “health” problem and therefore are not eligible for coverage.
Elderly citizens without the capacity or income to fight the government’s self-interested, cost-cutting moves end up going without healthcare.
Isn’t the national system wonderful?
And, guess what? That is what Obama is setting up for U.S.
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as NewsBusters.org, RightWingNews.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.
He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.