National Health Care Plan – Who Benefits & Who Doesn’t?
The Democratic Party is not satisfied with the de facto amnesty of more than 20 million illegal aliens in the United States and they aren’t going to be satisfied even if they manage to make it official by cramming the 2007 Amnesty bill down the gullets of the overly resistant American voters. After all, the $2.6 trillion dollar increase in the tax burden of the American people might, in fact, leave a few very wealthy families with enough remaining funds to dine out at Jack in the Box once or twice a year and the horror of this despicable disparity demands swift legislative action to nip it in the bud now before it’s entirely out of hand.
In response to the potential nightmare that would result if one single American managed to retain enough untaxed pocket change to purchase so much as a Snicker’s bar, the Democratic brain trust has scoured the failing nations of our planet in search of an innovative plan to address this growing threat and, the dedicated do-gooder’s would now appreciate your cooperation while they direct your attention away from the overwhelming flood of illegal aliens and onto the real number one threat in the United States – namely the plight of America’s impoverished masses forced to struggle through life without the benefit of medical insurance. Ignore the threat of world-wide Islamic terrorism, ignore the threat of the teeming masses of illegal aliens flooding across our unsecured southern border, the Democrats have ignored both for decades and it hasn’t seemed to hurt them one little bit. The real problem faced by every good-hearted American is rooted in the simple fact that there are pathologically lazy Americans waking up every morning across our nation who are forced to live with the knowledge that their alcohol soaked livers will eventually shut down and kill them because they are being denied the same medical coverage available as the people who work eight hours a day, five days a week and have the foresight to pay for health insurance. The idea that an inequity of this nature could exist in 21st century America is simply beyond the scope of understanding and, it is blatantly obvious that we, the American people, must correct this hideous problem ASAP by legislating a National Health Care System immediately. Ask not what your country can do for you – instead, ask yourself if you really need the three nickels and that measly quarter left untaxed in the bottom of your pocket! Can you live with the fact that your miserly stinginess is condemning little children with crooked teeth to lives of social awkwardness because their shiftless rum-soaked parents won’t shell out the $10,000 cost of braces? What is the matter with you? Consider the needs of the children!
To properly herald the Democratic Party’s attempt to shift the focus of attention from illegal aliens to the need for a national health care system the liberal marketing wizards have, once again, enlisted the nation’s most obnoxious liar, Michael Moore. They have kindly arranged an advertising windfall for this porcine stooge by enabling him to rhetorically spew his viewpoint across the floor of the California state senate as he promotes his latest propaganda film now scheduled for release around the end of June. You would think that with all of their Hollywood connections, the Democrats would be capable of finding someone with a minimum of credibility to do their bidding instead of having to repeatedly rely on the questionable talent of a cretinous babbling degenerate like Michael Moore.
The early reviews of Moore’s film indicate that he concentrates on the evils of America’s health care system and the reported statistical evidence that there are 47 million individuals in the United States without medical coverage. Throughout this tedious exercise he gives numerous illustrations of the superior health care system that is currently available in Great Britain and Canada. Superiority is obviously an extremely relative quality in Moore’s perspective, so relative in fact that, it could easily be written off as blind personal opinion.
Admittedly, the life expectancy in Great Britain is slightly higher than it is in the United States but is this really an adequate measure of the quality and availability of a health care system? After all, despite it’s numerous problems, the health care system in the United States still represents the best quality health care available any where on the planet. Of the twenty-five most recent Nobel Prizes awarded for medicine, eighteen went to American residents. U.S. pharmaceutical companies have developed more than 50% of all new medicines distributed across the world in the last twenty years and, American citizens have played an important part in the development of more than 80% of all major medical advances in the last thirty years. The single most discernable reason for America’s leadership in medical innovation is the simple fact that America’s health care system is controlled by a free market that aptly rewards innovative development. Is this really a problem we want the Democratically controlled U.S. Congress to fix for us?
Michael Moore evaded the finer points of Great Britain’s 59 year old socialized medical system. He neglected to include the fact that the British system has been rated as the 21st among the 42 European countries with regard to renal care. He neglected to explain that a patient undergoing major surgery in Great Britain is four times more likely of dying post-operatively than a patient undergoing the same surgery in the USA. He forgot to explain that at the beginning of 2006, only 49 percent of British adults and 63 percent of children were registered with public dentists who are famous, world-wide, for their inadequate care and roughshod work. He also neglected to mention that a there is a growing popular demand throughout Great Britain for “Do it Yourself Dentistry” kits sold in pharmacies because it is not all that uncommon for British dental patients to wait as long as six years for a dental appointment. It is possible that the statistical death rate from curable cancers in countries with nationalized health care systems completely slipped through his vacuous mind without notice so, I will help him out here by pointing out that only one out of every five men diagnosed with prostrate cancer in the US actually die from the disease while in Great Britain, 57% of those diagnosed with the cancer will inevitably die from it, in Canada the death rate from this curable cancer is 25%, in Germany and France the death rate from prostrate cancer is over 50%. In fact, in Great Britain, 40% of the people diagnosed with cancer are never allowed to see an oncologist and over 20% of the people diagnosed with colon cancer are untreatable by the time they are finally allowed to receive treatment. The leading cause of death under Japan’s nationalized health care system is cancer which, in many cases, would be considered curable in the United States.
In 2004, 19 year old Peter Owen of Colwyn Bay, North Wales developed an abscessed tooth. After being denied treatment six different times in the period of one week the abscessed tooth swelled to the point that it blocked his windpipe and nearly killed him. It took an emergency tracheotomy and two days on full life support to save his life. In another well publicized British case, Gordon Cook, a 55-year-old security manager resorted to using super glue to repair his front tooth while he waited over three years to receive authorization for a dental appointment and, then there is the case of William Kelly, a resident of a working-class suburb of Manchester, who gave in after six years of waiting for his dental appointment and ripped his own tooth out with a pair of pliers because the pain had finally become too great to bear any longer.
Medical error constitutes the fourth largest cause of death in Great Britain’s understaffed, underpaid and overstretched national health care system and critics claim that this estimate neglects the fatal errors unreported at the primary care level nor does it include the numerous deaths resulting from hospital-acquired infections; however, the British Medical Journal recently reported that one in every ten patients admitted to NHS hospitals in Britain will suffer at the hands of medical errors and that these errors directly result in 72,000 deaths every year across the nation.
In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Great Britain has dedicated a lot of effort and tax money to reducing the amount of time a patient is required to wait for a medical appointment with a specialist. In 2000 the British government announced that they would ensure British citizens would no longer have to wait more than thirteen weeks for a medical appointment or more than six months for admission to a hospital. In 2007 the average wait for a patient to see a medical specialist still exceeded 13 weeks and it still takes more than six months to get authorization to be admitted to a hospital regardless of the reason.
Why would Michael Moore forget to include this information in his movie on the evils of free market medicine in the United States? Why would the Democrats ignore the very serious problems resulting from nationalized health care systems throughout the world? There are two possible answers to these questions. Michael Moore and the Democrats who propose a national health care system for the United States are either ridiculously naive idiots who are using their ability to broadcast over a wide spectrum of American media to convince an overly impressionable voting public that something which is not broken is in such desperate need of repair that the devastating impact it will have on the American taxpayers can be entirely disregarded or, the even more likely reason is that, the loyalty of Michael Moore and the Democratic supporters of a national health care system lay entirely with the labor organizations representing America’s health care workers would reap huge rewards from the increased membership that a national health care administration would bring to them and they would gain some major political clout as a direct result. The vision of an eternally grateful group of labor organizations, revitalized with scads of money skimmed from the hard earned wages of the newly federalized employed health care workers in the form of union dues prior to being transferred into the campaign coffers of future Democratic candidates, is difficult to overlook. After all this sort of reciprocal back-scratching provided the fundamental justification behind the Democratic support for the Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminating the American worker’s inalienable right to choose whether or not they would support one political party or the other with the dues money snagged from their pay checks by the loyal Democratic union bosses. Since the Democrats have so aptly demonstrated their willingness to tamper with the essential liberties guaranteed in this country’s constitution in exchange for more than $100 million dollars in campaign contributions, what compelling reason do we have to believe that they would not be even more willing to implement socialized medical care in America to benefit the health care workers unions regardless of the consequences suffered by the American people?
When you get right down to the brass tacks, as far as the Democratic Party is concerned this is not a question of benefiting the American people or the United States of America, it is a matter of enlarging their support base, increasing the number of loyal Democratic voters and ensuring that they maintain the upper hand at all times and trivialities like benefiting the common good simply don’t add up when the real priority is making sure that they remain in control.
When it comes to the need for a national health care system in the United States the American people need to remember the statistical information that is currently available. There are an estimated 47 million people in the United States without medical insurance and, there are well over 20 million illegal aliens currently in the United States without authorization. It shouldn’t require a medical degree to figure out the connection here. Twenty five per cent of the children now born in the United States are born to illegal aliens. The hospitals in this country are compensated for the services they provide to these parents and children in only a miniscule fraction of these births. This has driven the cost of medical care in our country into orbit and, because the cost of medical care has skyrocketed, the cost of medical insurance has gone up accordingly. Is the solution to this problem a nationalized health care system that will greatly reduce the quality of the services we receive and bleeds the American taxpayers of their last remaining few dollars or, is there a far better solution available that will provide real benefit to the American people without sacrificing the quality of our health care and drown us in increased taxes? You can probably figure that one out yourself.
Technorati Tags:
amnesty, 
immigration reform, 
illegal aliens, 
Senate
, 
socialized medicine, 
National HealthCare Plan, 
Michael Moore, 
Democratic Party, 
labor union