I find it humorous how the blame game is being thrown around Washington in reference to the proposed “Health Care Bill”.
The Democrats are blaming the Republicans for not caring about the poor. The Republicans are blaming the Democrats for trying to pass a bill that can not be funded by the methods contained in the bill. Pelosi is blaming both Republicans and Democrats for not giving the president what he wants, when he wants it. The president is blaming everyone since he doesn’t care what is in the bill as long as he gets a bill gets passed. The “Blue Dog Democrats” have posed for the cameras enough to pretend to care about “the people” and now feel comfortable backing a bill that would be another entitlement program that the country can not afford and would be another stake in the heart of free enterprise.
If I were playing the “blame game”, I would blame the people of the United States. Actually, blame is the wrong word. I would praise the people of the United States for not buying into the hype, the manipulation of the administration and the rush to pass another bill that will absolutely invade our state sovereignty and our personal lives.
I don’t mean to make this too simple or put too much common sense into government, but shouldn’t the Representatives be looking to the people of their district and Senators be looking at the people in their state for the answer on how they are going to vote on the Health Care Bill. If they actually did their job, the Health Care Bill would have been put to rest long ago. Make no mistake; the only representation being conducted is that of Party Power Politics.
As a 21 year paramedic, I NEVER had a patient that was refused treatment. Let me repeat, I NEVER had a patient that was refused treatment. England and Canada with Universal Health Care can not make the same statement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fair enough, as a Paramedic you have to treat people. But, what if you need a heart or a liver transplant and don't have insurance? Does the hospital have to pay for these? Or if you have cancer and have no insurance does the hospital pay for the treatment and such? Maybe it does and I just don't know enough about the subject. I just want people without insurance to have access to these things. Ideally the poor and those without insurance could be covered and the private health care system could continue and easily compete with government care. Maybe the answer could be as simple as an increase in Medicaid. Whatever the case I feel that more or something must be done in terms of making health-care available to those who need it, insurance holders or not. Also, from what I heard, somes times people with insurance only have it with certain conditions and so are not covered for all medical ailments. I am not saying you are wrong about health-care Paul, it just seems to me that every other developed nation more or less has universal health-care, but on the other hand they usually have much higher taxes as well.
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith, how many people do you know that have been refused neccesary health care?
ReplyDeleteHeart or kidney transplants?
Why don't we also include breast augmentation and maybe liposuction also?
I like to call it natural selection. Harsh? Yes, maybe.
As a medical professional I see patients that need heart transplants often.
Most have abused there bodies with smoking, untreated hypertension, etc.
Where do we draw the line.
Alas, if this gov't. has it's way with more socialized medicine then how will you feel if you are the one needing a transplant and some bureaucrat looks on his gov't. check list and flips a coin and pulls a number out of a hat and finally lets you know you aren't covered?
Take a look at your next paycheck. How much of your hard earned money was deducted for social sec., medi. care, etc.?
Now let's look at the proposed health plan that the idiots in Washington have presented.
Illegal aleins-covered. People who can afford health insurance but would rather have a bigger car so don't pay for insurance and get free health care-covered. Abortions, no questions asked-covered. Infants born to parents and on the public dole insurance plan-covered with weekly visits from a federal employee to give the parents instruction on how to care for their children.
These are just a few examples of the proposed socializing of medicine in the USA.
Now, let's look at these other countrys with socialized programs.
The highest incidence of death due to prostate cancer is in, ready, Britian. Why? Because with so many people with free health care there are not enough physicians to treat the patients.
Why do you think that those that can afford to travel to the US for major health problems? We have the best medical treatment in the wprld because- the gov't does not own it- yet!
At the hospital I am employed at we do not turn anyone away. Does it cost taxpayers more? Yes. Will it be better or more economical if the fed. takes over? Well let's look at how socialized medicine has worked out for the state of
Mass.
Since Mass. has started a socialized, state run health system, the medical costs for this state has-increased more than if the system remained private.
Even the people that did not have health insurance complained that they were able to receive better and faster medical care before it was free!!!
Yeah, it's going to work out real well for the entire US.
There are at present 800,000 physicians in the US.
To treat the influx from the proposed public system we will need 3 times that many to treat patients.
The feds. answer to this shortage?
Included in the proposed plan is that any medical scholl that receives any gov't. funding must enroll more minority medical students to receive these funds. Can you say affirmative action.
Just what I want- "hey doc, did you get into med school because you were smart or because you were from Bangladesh?
Mr. Smith, I know you mean well with your concerns but please think long and hard, and do you due diligence in studying the proposed bill that will soon come up for debate.
Don't take these words that I have written as fact. Please research for yourself and please let me know if I have skewed any facts.
One last thought.
What program has this federal government ever taken control of that has worked? i.e., cost less than a comparable private program or actually been more efficient?
Soc. security? Postal service? IRS? Education? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? Cash for Clunkers?
I rest my case.