Saturday, February 27, 2010

Influential Canadian nipple escapes universal health care

One of the main arguments that liberals put in support of the "Universal Health Care" is that it is more fair than American free-market system. It is also proclaimed that the government-run medical care will be cheaper and more efficient, but I am not sure I even need to debunk the argument that socialism is efficient - this was achieved quite well by the Soviet despots and requires no further commenting.

An honest liberal should first acknowledge that "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payer System" are neither. The rich and the powerful will not and cannot be forced into this system. Just watch Canadian left-wing politicians eschewing the system they promote and traveling (example 1, example 2) to US to get medical care which is beyond the reach for the Canadian middle class. 

The first example is quite peculiar if not outright hysterical. Canadian MP, Belinda Stronach was and is a strong supporter of the Universal Health Care. Belinda had this to say about the right of Canadians to opt out of the Universal Health Care: "Well I dismiss the two-tier... I am not in favour of two-tier health. I been very, very consistent on the record in the last 31 days, saying I believe in universal access to healthcare, I believe in universal access to healthcare." When asked about the possibility that Canadians could pay more for faster service Belinda replied: "No, that's a two-tiered health system, which I said I'm not in favour of a two-tiered health system."

But then something unexpected happened, and Belinda decided to ignore her own pronouncements about the superiority of Canadian socialist system and sought the medical treatment in US. In spite of what any decent person would do, she has not ceased telling the Canadian people how much they were lucky to be trapped in the system of "universal" health care. "In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians. As well, her family has clearly demonstrated that support," Belinda's spokesman MacEachern told the Star.

Now, it's fair to ask why Belinda, the strong opponent of the two-tier system for Canadians, actually decided that a two-tier system would actually do wonders for her. The answer is simple - while Belinda's heart and mind strongly prefer the Canadian Medical Care, her nipple apparently had second thoughts once it realized the Universal Care was about to murder it. And when her nipple speaks - Belinda listens. According to Belinda: "It was important to me at the time that I wanted to preserve my nipple, and that wasn't at the time an option that I was given here."

Note the importance of her nipple was emphasized in the same article: "Without the technique to preserve the nipple, women who have breast reconstruction can opt for a "nipple" tattoo, but that's not what she [Belinda] wanted." Apparently, Belinda has no problem with the untimely death of the nipples of average Canadians, but she would raise hell to save her nipple - and don't even mention tattoos to her.

Belinda clearly is not ashamed of her decision to have preferential treatment for her nipple - while the system she strongly supports prohibits this for the rest of her country: "When you're faced with those pretty difficult decisions, you make the choices that you feel are best for you at that time. I'm not apologizing for it ... I don't view it as a cosmetic surgery. I think it's part of the healing process." As one can see, treating Belinda's nipple is what real health care should do - but as far as every one's nipples go - this is an elective plastic surgery, and the normal average Canadian nipples are of no importance.

It's fair to ask whether the treatment that Belinda has sought for her nipple in US (and which is not available to the nipples of ordinary Canadian taxpayers) is a standard procedure for middle-class Americans. Unfortunately, we cannot get an answer to this question, since Belinda is very secretive about her nipple surgery. As her spokesman says: "As we said back in June when we confirmed the surgery, this is a personal and private matter between Belinda, her family and her physicians. I think you'll understand that because of respect for Belinda's privacy, we refrained from offering specific details around her medical treatment."

Note that while Belinda won't shy away from making decision on whether other people's nipples deserve medical care - her nipple is out of reach for the common folks, so to speak.

The second story involves the heart of an important Canadian politician that followed the steps of Belinda's nipple and sought treatment in US for its ailment. According to Globe, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, another strong supporter of Universal Health Care has suddenly discovered that his heart was ailing and travelled to US to receive required medical treatment.

That trip did not preclude him from the standard announcements in support of the Universal Health Care.  Danny is just as positive on the Canadian Medical system as he ever has been. "I have the utmost confidence in our health-care system, I certainly do," the 60-year-old said, perched on a leather chair in his condominium in Sarasota, Fla. "It's a bum rap for someone to turn around and say, 'Oh, Williams does not have confidence in his own health-care system because he has to leave the province.' "

Moreover, in order to explain his trip to the evil profit-seeking American medical facilities, Danny claimed (wrongly) that the type of surgery he was seeking was not available in Canada: "Did some checking, of course, and what was ultimately done to me, the surgery I eventually got ... was not offered to me in Canada."

Canadian doctors were not amused and noted that Danny was not 100% accurate in his description "It's his body, it's his money, hopefully, but don't tell us the operation cannot be done here. It can be done," said Arvind Koshal, director of cardiac surgery at the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute in Edmonton. Note that the doctor sounds uncertain on whether the politician used his own money to pay for the surgery, or it was actually someone else's funds - presumably the taxpayers dime. And, as you will see later, the good doctor had good reasons for his doubts.

When questioned about his choice for medical treatment, Danny Williams discovered the long-lost inner libertarian and had this to say: "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."

Ah, this certainly clears it all up. Surely Williams has the utmost confidence in Canadian health care - it's just he does not believe it's good enough for him - but it is perfectly all right for the plebs.

Of course, Williams did not stop there, and had this to add: "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Moreover, the same rich politician also proclaimed that he would not be ashamed to have the Canadian middle class pay for his surgery: "If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would."

In summary, Belinda and Williams, two high-level Canadian politicians strongly support the system that prohibits the right of normal citizens to escape from the government, while themselves choosing the American medical care. If anything, the rich and powerful liberals, unapologetic promoters of the government monopoly on health care turn into raving-mad libertarians when it comes to their medical care.

So, what about the fairness of the Universal Health Care? As the examples above show, the rich and powerful will still have superior service compared to the rest of the public under the misnomered "single payer system". In other words, even the names used to describe the liberal ideas are false, since it is impossible to have a single-tier system. Whether it's North Korea, Canada, Soviet Union or Great Britain, the rich and well-connected politicians will have the best health care, well above what the average tax-payer can even imagine.

What exactly does the "Universal Health Care" mean for the American Middle Class? It's fairly simple and obvious. While the top 1% of Americans will not see any immediate changes to their health care, the middle class and the poor will most likely see the equalization of their medical treatments. In other words, a hard-working middle class American citizen will be treated no better than a street bum. This will be achieved only by somewhat raising the level of care for the poor and drastic lowering the standards for the middle class. In short, following Obama's unwritten motto "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - at least in respect to the people who are not rich and powerful like him. And don't forget, it will be the government that will determine your "need" and your "ability" to pay.

It's undeniable that many Americans will see a drastic decrease in incentive to do better in their professional life. No matter what you do and how much you have achieved, you won't see any improvement in your health care. And unless you are rich and powerful - you will be treated by the government as a bum - with same amount of respect for your needs. Does this sound life a fair system - a system where you get what you deserve?

The second consequence of the Universal Health Care system will be a drastic slow down in the rate of medical development. It should not surprise anyone that American health care is on the front lines of medical research, and that rich and powerful people from around the globe come to US for the best possible treatments. It should be also said that all new medical treatments are very expensive, but as the history teaches us - technology and mass production eventually lower the costs dramatically, and middle class starts enjoying what was before considered as luxury goods. If America were to copy the Canadian system - where would those pesky Canadian politicians go? What would have happened to Belinda's nipple and William's heart, had US dropped its free market and adopted Canadian health care?

The most maddening aspect of the current situation is that the medical science is clearly on the brink of major discoveries that could prolong human life, find treatments for numerous diseases and greatly improve our health. The genome research and nano-technologies coupled with greatly improved computational capabilities will result in some revolutionary new technologies - unless the government takes over medical care and effectively shuts down the medical progress. Theoretically, the people who are born today may live eternal lives if we do not give up the free market system. It is my firm belief that the fight against Universal Health Care is the fight for mankind - and for our children's lives.

Are you with me, comrades?


RamblingMother said...

thanks for speaking out and keep up the good work. Surely someone will wake up enough to stop the train wreck called the Obamapresidency!

Hyphenated American said...

Dear RamblingMother,

Thanks a lot for your comment. Keep it coming.

BTW, I am curious how you found my blog? It's not exactly the most popular one in the internet - yet.

Hyphenated American

Tony Barnes said...

Hey like your blog I just started mine and am still getting used to putting my thoughts down, but it is along the same line as yours

Harriscon said...

An "honest liberal?" You understand, of course, that there is no such thing, don't you? If liberals told the truth about what they really wanted to do, which amounts to taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't, they'd never win another election.

kmbr said...

Your blog rocks, HyphAm!

TO Harrison:

I am afraid you are wrong. If they preface it with the idea that whoever they are taking the money from is "rich"--people will fall over themselves to vote for them.