The necessary results of socialized medicine

One of the reasons I give money to Hillsdale College is that they not only refuse to take government money directly, they refuse to allow any of their students to accept government grants or loans. Hillsdale knows that once there is a penny of government money in their coffers, government will they try to tell them what to do.

If you look at such government idiocy as requiring cheerleaders to be at girls’ sporting events as much as they are at boys’ events, despite the fact that frequently neither the girls’ teams nor the cheerleaders support that, you can see the type of micro-management, big-nanny government, that continuously impinges on our liberty. It may seem like a small thing, but it’s just one more chink in the armor of freedom.

One of the biggest risks to our country from the Democrats, and particularly if we were economically suicidal enough to elect any of the current Democrat frontrunners to be President, would be their bringing the same destruction of freedom and quality to medicine that their meddling has brought to public education.

All we need to do is look at the UK and Canada where medical care is of mediocre quality, where waiting times are frequently deadly (I’ve read that the UK’s health system actually instructed hospitals to increase waiting times to save money!), and where citizens come to the US for important medical care when they need it urgently and they can afford it.

A newly-released poll from England should cause even more worry as we see our elected representatives dip their toes in the dirty water of socialism:

see “Don’t join NHS for a career, say doctors”, UK Telegraph, 4/12/07

In an online survey of 1,442 British doctors, 54% said that morale among doctors was “poor” or “terrible” and 69% said they would not recommend a career in medicine to friends or relatives.

Quoting from the article above: A spokesman for the British Medical Association said: “The survey shows how doctors believe constant Government reforms are taking them further away from their vocation – to treat patients.”

Would you want to go to a doctor whose morale is “terrible”? I think not.

But what else could the outcome be of putting decisions about how to treat patients under the thumb of government’s dead hand?

I said before that electing one of the current Democrat frontrunners would be economically suicidal. Now that I think of it, it could simply be suicidal, in the literal meaning of the word, at least for someone who has a serious medical condition.

The Democrats insane desire for government-controlled medicine (and I do mean insane, given the results of those policies in other countries) will cost money and lives if voters are not smart and aware enough to recognize the peril that Hillary-care poses.

Be Sociable, Share!