Among the inflammatory charges, Sen. Edward Kennedy wouldn't have received state-of-the-art care for his brain tumor in a place like Great Britain because health overseers would have found extending the life of the 77-year-old unworthy of the expense.
"Well, I'm sorry to say that's the most ludicrous thing that I've heard," Ara Darzi, a surgeon and former minister of health, tells Steve Inskeep on Tuesday's Morning Edition. It's an example, Darzi says, of the "lies that have been used to set fear against reform."
...
"Americans fear that countries such as Britain and Canada ration care -- and that such rationing could and should never be tolerated in the United States," the Post editorial says. "Yet 47 million uninsured is quite an extreme form of rationing. So at this moment, the burden of proof falls upon those who oppose change -- for they stand in defense of fear.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Rationing
One of the big talking points opponents of health care reform bring up is the fear of rationing. They claim health care rationing exists in Britain's and Canada's health care system. A British doctor speaks out:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think uncertainty and fear of what could be is a damn good enough reason to oppose anything. If you don't know, say no.
courtney,
Unreasonable fear is not a good enough reason for opposing anything. The better answer to saying if you don't know is not no but to say I'll have to research and see what is really going on and not listen to fear mongers(Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, to name a few) who have their own political goals for creating rage when there should debate.
Why is this 47 million figure continually referred to as if it is 100% accurate? It includes a) illegal aliens (who shouldn't be covered) b) Students and others who voluntarily aren't covered. The true figure is dramatically lower than 47 million.
Also, the whole narrative of the left that insurance companies are the true bogeyman, and that they are the true "rationers" is folly.
While it is true their bottom line is cost (similarly the new overhaul's stated aim is cost reduction), it cannot be said they are "rationers" themselves, because THEY DO NOT EXCLUSIVELY CONTROL THE SERVICE PROVIDED! You don't like your company? Drop em, and get a new one! Get second and third opinions! Under the new system as proposed, and if (G-d forbid) we end up with single payer, that is all out the window!
The bottom line is that it is unquestionable that government cannot provide (cost) effective services for most anything that the private sector can, and now we want to hand this over to the government? Call me a conspiratorialist (is that even a word?) but creeping national socialism is happening in front of our eyes (banks, automakers, mortgage securities, now health care). If I wasn't such an non-zionist, I would be on the next flight. Maybe.
It doesn't include illegal immigrants. It's the number of people who cannot afford or have lost their insurance as premiums continue to go up.
I think it's a shame that the US is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet people are losing their homes and going bankrupt because of the rising costs of health care reform.
If you have insurance, has your premium gone up while at the same time deductibles and co-pays have increased?
We need health care reform. I like the idea of a public option.
Post a Comment