health care reform: rationing, costs, and abortion
After part 1 on "liberal lies about health care", here's part 2 in a series from Ann Coulter at TownHall.com on health care...
(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.
Anyone who says that is a liar....Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs...without ever denying a single medical treatment!...
(7) National health care will reduce costs.
This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.
The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.
As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.
You may recall this era as "the Carter years."...
There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.
Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific....After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.
Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"
No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy....
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 12:05 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
So what is the difference between a liberal and a conservative in the USA ?
Conservatives seem to have a great belief in socialism with their statements that medicare should not be touched.
So a question do you believe a socialistic system like medicare whom all get at sixty five regardless if they have paid taxes or not should be kept in place ?
Or do US conservatives believe in socialism ?
First, I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.
Self-styled conservatives vary quite quite a bit. I've written at length on this-- most notably at:
http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/different-kinds-of-conservatives.html
An economic conservative would not favor the continuation of Medicare, although they might not choose to prioritize that particular battle.
Other types of conservatives are often quite liberal on economics, so all bets are off there.
Do you even know how health care works now? The insurance companies already ration care. They decide if you can get health insurance, what they will cover, to what amount and for how long. They decide how many times you can see a doctor and still be covered for it.
Hammers and toilet seats have nothing to do with health insurance. Medicare is the most efficient health care program in the nation. And you don't see members of Congress complaining about their own government run health insurance.
All we want is another option to private insurance companies that are taking thousands of our hard-earned dollars a year (tens of thousands for families) and not covering us. Why is that so wrong?
Alisa, exactly. Markets ration care-- with or without insurance. Governments ration care if they run the show. If the govt provides more coverage, it costs more or there is additional rationing. Yes?
Another option-- from the govt? Aside from being unconstitutional, unethical if taking others money to fund it, and impractical if extended very far (and why are people so fond of a federal vs. state approach), it's a lovely idea.
Do you have any idea why the current health care/insurance system is so screwed up? If not, adding band-aids or using a leg cast for an aneurysm is not the height of wisdom?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home