"most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone."
Da#%^ Republicans. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone. First, this service isn’t free. Everyone pays for it (dearly) through their taxes. Second, if the government is going to deny service to "smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly," then shouldn’t the government refund the portion of their taxes that goes to NHS? Third, why should it stop at those groups? Why not refuse service to careless drivers (tie in the police traffic citation records and drop anyone with too many tickets)? Why not a bunch of other groups who exhibit harmful behavior?
I can’t wait for Blewyn to come in here and defend this.
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
Why not a bunch of other groups who exhibit harmful behavior? Or who just engage in unsavory behavior? You owe some parking tix or back taxes? No healthcare for you! Carbon footprint too big? No healthcare for you!
Of course, the flip side of this story- babies ready to be born with defects/diseases? Either mandatory abort or allow it to die immediately after death.
You really think it can’t/won’t happen here if we go to "free" healthcare? |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
How about dangerous sexual or drug using behaviors? They get cut loose? And traveling long distances obviously increases your chances of being involved in an automotive accident, so maybe those who average driving more than some arbitrary number get dropped? The possibilities are endless. And guess who would get to make the choices? Oh, yeah, the same friendly people who run the DMV nad the VA Hospitals and the IRS and so on. Whoopee.
I’m presuming that our new collectivist masters will never, ever base their decisions on political concerns, right? |
| |
Written By:
JorgXMcKie
URL:
http://
|
"The possibilities are endless."
Indeed. Diabetes, heart disease, anything that is caused by or contributed to by the actions or lifestyle of the patient (except, of course, for AIDS). I predict it won’t be long before the NHS there is running a surplus. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
|
I’ve got a hypothetical question. Let’s assume either Obama or Hillary wins in 2008; the Democrats retain control of Congress; and, they bestow upon the American people nationalized, "free" health care. Twenty years from now, when the Federal Dept. of Health is rationing health care and denying people over a certain age certain types of health care, will lefties who accuse Bush of lying about WMD admit that Democrats are lying about the benefits of socialized medicine. The stories about long waiting lists, health care rationing, Canadians coming to the US for operations, unavailability of the latest drugs, etc. are all readily known right now. We have empirical evidence that socialized medicine deprives people of health care by rationing and the health care that is provided is inferior to that provided by the private sector with private insurance. I won’t hold my breath. |
| |
Written By:
jt007
URL:
http://
|
"treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old poor or who lead unhealthy unprofitable lives."
Ah, much better. |
| |
Written By:
symptomless
URL:
http://
|
|
Interseting take on theis from Dr. Wesley J. Smith, here. Read headline: Doctors Urge NHS Not to Treat the Promiscuous |
| |
Written By:
Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL:
http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
|
...will lefties who accuse Bush of lying about WMD admit that Democrats are lying about the benefits of socialized medicine. Of course not. Post-modernist thought says that you can’t possibly be lying about something if your intentions are good.
Bush’s intentions were bad, bad, bad, therefore it doesn’t even matter if he believed what he was saying; he’s still lying. But if someone’s intentions are good, it doesn’t matter whether they believe what they say or not - they’re on the side of the angels and therefore can’t be a liar. |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
