Nationally Socialized Health Care

___________________________________________________________________________________ 5 freedoms you'd lose in "health care 'reform'" If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.  July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET 1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan 2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs 3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage 4. Freedom to keep your existing plan 5. Freedom to choose your doctors http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/   _________________________________________ The Case Against 'ObamaCare', A Primer for Non-Lawyers  by Robert A. Levy via http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12972 Excerpt-

Multiple challenges to President Obama's health care reform are percolating through the federal courts. Soon the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on perhaps the most important question of the post–New Deal era: Are there any remaining limits on the breadth and scope of federal power?

Reinforced by decades of Court decisions that have gutted the Framers' original conception of limited government, the Obama administration has embraced an unprecedented expansion of centralized control. This paper addresses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a mandate that individuals either purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy or pay a penalty. The Department of Health and Human Services has asserted three constitutional provisions as sources of authority for the mandate — the Taxing Power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Each of those purported sources is deficient. First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate interstate commerce extends only to economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited federal government of enumerated powers. An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional.

eBook - http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/ObamaHealthCareReform-Levy.pdf _________________________________________________ Public Option vs. Single Payer System  Public Option: a Govt. Program IS an Insurance Company, while Health Insurance Is Mandatory;  

Individual Mandate: The 'Individual Mandate' to purchase 'Health Insurance' has been ruled unconstitutional. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/13/judge-to-obamacare-architects-ahem-meet-the-constitution-power-grabbers/

__________________________________________________________ Single Payer: Govt. HCI Program holds monopoly on Health Insurance. -- Jacob Hacker [Architect of 'ObamaCare'] stated at the "Tides Foundation":

"Someone once said to me this is a Trojan horse for single payer and I said, well its not a 'Trojan' horse right? Its just right there! I'm telling you we're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employment based health insurance as we should but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance, we're going to give them a choice between public and private when they're in the pool and then we're going to let them keep the employment based insurance if their employer continues to provide it" Which such a system incentivizes They Don't!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTfZJBYo1I __________________________________________________________________________________ MEDICARE/ MEDICADE/ The Complete Lives System aka DEATH PANELS [by Necessary Rationing] __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statistics __________________________________ 62.5% of The UN WHO Report That ranks our (USA) Health Care at 38th, IS MEASURED ON "FAIRNESS"

CATO: WHOm Are They Kidding? by Glen Whitman

This article appeared in the American Spectator on March 10, 2008

(Short Excerpt) The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is "health level," defined as a country's disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is "health responsiveness," which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities. Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country's score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care -- and that can actually punish a country's ranking for superior performance. ___________________________________________

A Blog Excerpt from Agoraphilia

The WHO rankings include more than inequality, which means the changes described above would have ambiguous effects on the country's score. But that's a problem, because the changes described should register as unambiguous improvements. And note that the WHO approach places 62.5% of its weight on inequality measures. ______________________________________________________

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports that if "Obama-Care" passes 1/3rd (29.2%) of Doctors will quit.

 __________________

AIM: Myths About Socialized Medicine

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ The Top 5 USA Hospitals conduct more clinical tests than ALL hospitals in Canada or Sweden or Great Britain for an entire year __________________   22 yr olds are dying of thirst in England Hospitals _____________________________________ The Fraser Institute estimates that 41,000 Canadians sought health care in the U.S. during 2009.  __________________________________________________________________________________ A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. · Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42% · Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43% · Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43% · Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43% · Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18 · Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health": U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6% ---------________________________________________________---------- Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery — described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.” _________________________________________________ Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.  Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. __________________________________________________________________________________

In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia. These are not mere anecdotes. Much academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario. A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list." ___________________________________________________________________________________ PLAYLIST of Related Videos ___________________________________________________________________________________ LINKS  
__________________________________________

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33426 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33425 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33428 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33427 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33435 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33429 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33422 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33431 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33421 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33416 http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--14-Is_There_Right_Health_Care.aspx

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-white-house-funded-obamacare-internet-propaganda-campaign/

Marxism

[Wikipedia]

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that centers around a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism. Originally developed in the early to mid 19th century by two Germans, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism is based upon a materialist interpretation of history. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction one against the other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism, the currently dominant form of economic management, leads to the oppression of the proletariat, who not only make up the majority of the world's populace but who also spend their lives working for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, or the wealthy ruling class in society.

To correct this inequality between the bourgeoisie, who are the wealthy minority, and the proletariat, who are the poorer majority, Marxism advocates, and believes in the historical inevitability of, a proletarian revolution, when the proletariat take control of government, and then implement reforms to benefit their class, namely the confiscation of private property which is then taken under state control and run for the benefit of the people rather than for the interests of private profit. Such a system is known as socialism, although Marxists believe that eventually a socialist society would develop into an entirely classless system, which is known as communism in Marxist thought.

"Marxism" -

colloquially  refers to generally anti-capitalism and pro-Redistribution-ism [because of the Marx quote "From each according to his ability to each according to his need"].

The nature of attempted implementations of 'Marxism' demonstrating its nature as being the [impossible] politically authoritarian design/control of economics.

The Nature of a free market necessitating a govt.'s protection of property and free trade.
Keynesianism being a "Mixture Economy"


Politics and Economics by nature are interrelated; It is supremely incomplete to talk about a govt. structure without mentioning how its funded or discussing an economic structure without mentioning if a govt. is subsidizing industries [or certain Companies!].

Any philosophy that does not take the interrelation into account [as a primary point of reference], cannot very well impart perspective on either the key natures of political and economic systems, a failing which by nature aligns with the promotion of redistributionism and Govt. Economic interference; ignoring the source of Government's revenue, The People.
__________________________________________________________________________________


Cuba - 

The Marxist vision of Communism being impossible [by way of inevitable Oligarchy and impossible universal economic equality, excepting universal poverty and notable deviation of Oligarchs]; Cuba is not "Socialist", but what has always been recognized as "Communist" [at least since the start of the cold war]; that is, within the extremes of State Run, Controlled Economy.

Taking coffee off of infants' ration cards IS NO DEVIATION FROM IT.

Lawrence O'Donnell's Epic America is Socialist Rant - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM2ktCj4-bM

__________________________________________________________________________________