Attention Governors Pawlenty and Schwarzenneger!
Do you really want to subject your states to health care like Canada's?
"Adolfo Flora had a simple choice. He could either die of liver cancer within six months or spend $450,000 for treatment overseas."
A simple choice indeed.
"This week's ruling was a blow for the 57-year-old retired high school teacher, who contracted hepatitis C from a tainted blood transfusion and was diagnosed with liver cancer in 1999. He spent $450,000 for a transplant in England after being denied the life-saving help in Ontario. " (emphasis mine)
He contracted Hepatitis C from a blood transfusion that he got from GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!!! Now that same government tells him that he can not get life saving treatment....ok.
Now you can not be for tell someone that his only choice in health care is the government run "universal" health care and then turn around and tell him that the very life-saving medical treatments that you need are "not covered". That takes the "universal" out of universal - something that I have been arguing all along.
Flora's lawyer has the telling comment though.
"The implications of this decision are far-reaching and can affect many throughout the province in life-threatening situations, said Flora's lawyer, Mark Freiman.
"It restricts the government's obligations in terms of providing heath care, especially life-saving health care," said Freiman, a former Deputy Attorney General of Ontario and expert on the Charter. "If the decision is upheld, it's not likely that people in a similar situation can require the government to assist them with providing life saving medical treatment.
"When government takes it upon itself to monopolize the provision of necessary medical care it has the responsibility to provide life-saving medical treatment." (emphasis mine)
Think long and hard about this folks. Do we really want a government run monopoly that has the power of life and death over us or our children? Those of you who personally don't like or trust this administration - would you want them to have the power over the health care that you might receive? Those of you who are pro-choice...suppose your worst nightmare comes true and the House, the Senate and the White House are all pro-life. I thought the whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to get the government out of a woman's health care decisions. Universal health care puts the government squarely where you do not want them. Are you really happy with that idea?
"Adolfo Flora had a simple choice. He could either die of liver cancer within six months or spend $450,000 for treatment overseas."
A simple choice indeed.
"This week's ruling was a blow for the 57-year-old retired high school teacher, who contracted hepatitis C from a tainted blood transfusion and was diagnosed with liver cancer in 1999. He spent $450,000 for a transplant in England after being denied the life-saving help in Ontario. " (emphasis mine)
He contracted Hepatitis C from a blood transfusion that he got from GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!!! Now that same government tells him that he can not get life saving treatment....ok.
Now you can not be for tell someone that his only choice in health care is the government run "universal" health care and then turn around and tell him that the very life-saving medical treatments that you need are "not covered". That takes the "universal" out of universal - something that I have been arguing all along.
Flora's lawyer has the telling comment though.
"The implications of this decision are far-reaching and can affect many throughout the province in life-threatening situations, said Flora's lawyer, Mark Freiman.
"It restricts the government's obligations in terms of providing heath care, especially life-saving health care," said Freiman, a former Deputy Attorney General of Ontario and expert on the Charter. "If the decision is upheld, it's not likely that people in a similar situation can require the government to assist them with providing life saving medical treatment.
"When government takes it upon itself to monopolize the provision of necessary medical care it has the responsibility to provide life-saving medical treatment." (emphasis mine)
Think long and hard about this folks. Do we really want a government run monopoly that has the power of life and death over us or our children? Those of you who personally don't like or trust this administration - would you want them to have the power over the health care that you might receive? Those of you who are pro-choice...suppose your worst nightmare comes true and the House, the Senate and the White House are all pro-life. I thought the whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to get the government out of a woman's health care decisions. Universal health care puts the government squarely where you do not want them. Are you really happy with that idea?
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home