She’s Not 12 Yet, So She’s Just Tissue (Or, “This Is Your Future Under Socialized Medicine”)


i_robot_sebelius
I, Sebelius

Detective Del Spooner: This was hers. She wanted to be a dentist. What the h*** kind of twelve-year-old wants to be a dentist? Yeah, um… the truck smashed our cars together and pushed us into the river. You know, metal gets pretty pliable at those speeds. She’s pinned, I’m pinned, the water’s coming in. I’m a cop, so I know everybody’s dead. Just a few minutes until we figure that out. NS4 was passing by and jumped in the river.

[flashback]

NS4 Robot: You are in danger!

Detective Del Spooner: Save her!

NS4 Robot: You are in danger!

Detective Del Spooner: Save her! Save the girl!

[end flashback]

Detective Del Spooner: But it didn’t. Saved me.

Susan Calvin: The robot’s brain is a difference engine. It’s reading vital signs. It must have done…

Detective Del Spooner: It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody’s baby. 11% is more than enough. A human being would’ve known that. Robots, [indicating his heart], nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust ‘em if you want to.

~ Scene from I, Robot (transcript reformatted)

Isaac Asimov is perhaps best known as a science fiction writer, but he is also well known for his “Three Laws of Robotics” which are discussed in many of his works (although he initially didn’t get into many details).  I, Robot was actually a series of fictional stories about robots.  The clip above is from the movie, which took pieces and parts from different stories to actually create a unique plot for the movie.

Spooner, played by Will Smith, makes the point that the robot made its decision according to cold and calculating logic per its programming, whereas a human would have made an entirely different choice.

I like the movie, but I have some doubts about that particular premise.  Would “a human”, as in any human, have truly valued the child more than the adult?

As far as I can see, US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would not have.  Rather, she would have followed the rules like a heartless robot.  The irony is that she, as the HHS Secretary, she is in charge of the rules!

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The U.S. health secretary said she won’t intervene in an “incredibly agonizing” transplant decision about a dying Pennsylvania girl, noting that three other children in the same hospital are just as sick.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a congressional panel Tuesday that medical experts should make those decisions.

However, relatives of 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan said Sebelius’ remarks confused them because they want a policy change for all pre-adolescent children awaiting lung transplants, not just Sarah.

~ AP, “Sebelius won’t intervene in Pa. transplant case

Policy dictates that only patients over 12 years old can be put on the list.  Sarah is 2 years away from that, and they are measuring her life expectancy in weeks at this point.  The rub is that her doctors think the risk is minimal in her case.  If she were put on the list, she would shoot to the top because of the seriousness of her current condition.

I find at least two major problems with this lunacy.  First, any person with common sense knows that by its very nature governmental run programs have to make decisions who will be treated and who will not be treated.  Literally, who will live and who will die.  It is inevitable that medical rationing will occur in a socialistic system.  It is even worse when a system is so abhorrent that a few doctors would rather quit practicing medicine rather than put up with an inherently flawed system like Obamacare.  Socialized medicine requires more doctors, not less!  So, even if it is only a few that will give up and leave, it still makes a big difference.  At least temporarily, there will be a big shortage of doctors.

Of course, the shortage will only get slightly better.  Just look to Britain to see your future, America!

The second part of this that bothers me is that one human being is deemed of lesser value than another.  Babies who were not born yet are tissue and “not human”.  I guess now we see that even those who are born and under 12 are not human either.

This is where the abortion mentality naturally leads to.  This is where the lack of understanding of what being made in God’s image leads to.  It is callous.  It is cold.  It is inhumane.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless (“without natural affection”, KJV), ruthless.

~ Ro 1:28-31 (ESV)

When you stop to have compassion and respect for the weakest in society, then natural affection has to be squelched in order to do so.  When society kills off the “unwanted”, and let’s face it, they are aborted because they are considered “inconvenient” which is a cold and calculated way of saying “unwanted”, then the collective conscience of the culture becomes seared.

It is interesting that a science fiction story talks about the inhumanity of robots when in reality human beings do not even measure up to the supposed difference.

There are lines in which God expects even the unsaved and uncalled to live up to.  This is in evidence when expression like the “iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Ge 15:16), not to mention the numerous prophets that warned Israel and Judah that their sins were “worse” than those of the nations they dispossessed.  However, God has richly blessed this nation, which supposedly was built upon Christian principles as far as possible without outright declaring itself a Christian nation.  Like Israel, God will punish a nation that has fallen so far from Him.

UPDATE: Politico reports “Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant case: Sebelius ordered to make exception on transplant”.

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to allow Murnaghan to be put on the adult transplant list.  The hearing is 14 June.  It should be stressed that this is only temporary, though, and what happens at the hearing (should Murnaghan live that long without a transplant) will determine a lot about her future.  Senators literally begging Sebelius to ease the rules did not work; it took a court order.


23 thoughts on “She’s Not 12 Yet, So She’s Just Tissue (Or, “This Is Your Future Under Socialized Medicine”)

  • Todd Sauve
    Todd Sauve

    Hmm, I don’t see where the idea of “socialised medicine” is the problem. People are routinely left to die by the American “free enterprise” medical system simply because they get a disease and their insurance company therefor decides to cancel their coverage. This happens EVERY DAY throughout the US. In countries like Canada, which do have the dreaded (by uninformed Americans anyway) socialised medicine, that doesn’t happen. It is against the law.

    Both systems can and do end up with a quota on certain types of health care procedures, but at least in Canada EVERYONE has health insurance. Tens of millions of Americans don’t.

    John, you have no reason to think or say that the American system is better than that of the other industrialized countries in the world. Indeed, it is the opposite unless you have a lot of of money in your bank account. Then you can buy anything.

    • Profile photo of
      John D

      Todd Suave wrote: “John, you have no reason to think or say that the American system is better than that of the other industrialized countries in the world.”

      Excuse me, but where did I ever say such a thing? Don’t get me wrong, as it once was the greatest healthcare system, but it is no longer. Most of medicine used to be true nonprofits, rather than “nonprofit” as is bandied about in the case of the IRS scandal. Medicine is big business in this country, and business in general has been overcome by excessive greed.

      Hospitals are still somewhat affiliated with religious organizations in pocket areas of the country. That’s because in the past hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens and other social programs were started and run by Christian organizations. Most these days simply affiliate w/ whomever can donate the most money. Cleveland Clinic is a very nice hospital. You can afford to be when a sheik rents out an entire floor for his hospital stay.

      This should not be surprising, IMO. Americans have pushed and sometimes shoved God out of the public view, except when it meets some political agenda of course. So, is it any surprise that greed and corruption fill the vacuum?

      However, while you cannot always make things better, you can always make them worse. Canadians better live longer, seeing as one study verified that some who can afford it come to the US for procedures rather than be put on a waiting list back home. More government bureaucracy is never the answer. A lot of the cost of business for physicians is dealing w/ the red tape. Obamacare uses red duct tape. Socialization of greed and corruption is not the answer.

      Of course, we will eventually end up w/ yet another wonderfully centralized governmentally controlled system in the end. I notice that it is “the merchants” that bewail the fall of Babylon the Great. It will simply be a repackaging and centralization of the same greed and corruption under a different banner. I notice that this bureaucracy will also engage in slave trade, thus dehumanizing people even more. It will do what human governments always do best: extend privileges to the few at the expense of the “undesired” by taking advantage of most.

      People get too hung up on forms of government rather than root causes. Jesus will have a centralized government, but I see no prophecies about needing doctors, lawyers and bureaucrats. Maybe that’s because the root causes for such things will be gone.

      • Todd Sauve
        Todd Sauve

        John, you wrote:

        “I find at least two major problems with this lunacy. First, any person with common sense knows that by its very nature governmental run programs have to make decisions who will be treated and who will not be treated. Literally, who will live and who will die. It is inevitable that medical rationing will occur in a socialistic system. It is even worse when a system is so abhorrent that a few doctors would rather quit practicing medicine rather than put up with an inherently flawed system like Obamacare. Socialized medicine requires more doctors, not less! So, even if it is only a few that will give up and leave, it still makes a big difference. At least temporarily, there will be a big shortage of doctors.

        Of course, the shortage will only get slightly better. Just look to Britain to see your future, America!”

        As I said, in your US system the insurance company decides what will be covered and what won’t be. Why is that superior than an elected gov’t deciding what is covered by insurance?

        Stating “Just look to Britain to see your future, America!” is by its very nature saying that your system is going to change for the worse.

        So you in fact did say that, even if you don’t want to admit it..

        • Profile photo of
          John D

          So, are you agreeing that a shortage of doctors is worse than a shortage of money? That is what I am saying with “Socialized medicine requires more doctors, not less!”

          Socialism never brings more efficiency. It always brings more inefficiency and waste. I have a problem with that because the system is already filled with waste and inefficiency.

          And, yes, the American system is better than the British socialized medical construct by far. Their legislators argue over medicine even more than the US legislators do because it is so inefficient, costly and even at times very deadly.

          Still, socialized medicine in the US will simply wallpaper over the greed and corruption in the medical industry and add the problems unique to socialized medicine on top of it. Just like all the other attempted previous band aids.

          • Todd Sauve
            Todd Sauve

            John,

            I suggest that you read all of the material I sourced for Andrew in my replies for him, and also view Michael Moore’s “Sicko” documentary. It will answer your questions and also show you that the so-called “socialised medicine” that you fear so much is not the horrible thing you portray it to be.

            A point by point comparison of the two systems will show you the strengths and weaknesses of both. Not that socialised medicine is the be all and end all, but it can be much more equitably and responsibly run than the current American abomination. This is not a criticism of Americans, as you and Andrew seem to be afraid of, but rather a more sensible and fiscally responsible way of covering everyone equally. The US does not need to exactly copy the Canadian system, but you could come up with a far, far better system than you currently “enjoy” (if I may use such a term) and save a GREAT deal of money in the process. The only thing stopping your citizenry is the fascist conspiracy of big business and big politics that rules the roost right now.

          • Todd Sauve
            Todd Sauve

            John,

            You also wrote:

            “So, are you agreeing that a shortage of doctors is worse than a shortage of money? That is what I am saying with “Socialized medicine requires more doctors, not less!”

            Socialism never brings more efficiency. It always brings more inefficiency and waste. I have a problem with that because the system is already filled with waste and inefficiency.”

            These statements are not true. At least not when comparing the Canadian and American systems.

            Canada’s system costs, overall, about 60% of what the US system does. And Canada’s utilizes fewer doctors per capita than the US system does.

            As I said, read the following Wikipedia article:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

          • Profile photo of
            John D

            Todd, I’ve seen the results of socialism in Eastern Europe. I don’t fear it, I abhor it because it is built upon a corrupt mindset. All one has to do is go into a BMV to see how government bureaucracies work. For that matter, I cannot even get my mail around here delivered in a responsible manner. I don’t have to look very far for how government interference always, always, always screws things up.

            Furthermore, Michael Moore makes Anne Coulter seem like a rational person. I’m not going to view his film because he is an idiot.

            I suggest you place your faith in God and not in forms of government or economy.

  • Todd Sauve
    Todd Sauve

    PS
    After studying both systems carefully, I have found that the Canadian system costs about 60% of the US system yet Canadians live longer than Americans. Everyone in Canada is covered but about 40 million Americans have no coverage whatsoever. (That’s more uncovered Americans than there are Canadians in existence!) In the US the insurance companies tell you what things they will allow you to have treated, while in Canada a gov’t appointed panel decides. At least in Canada you can vote the gov’t out but what can you do about corporate greed, other than die?

    Getting any of your political parties to take on the health care industry is an exercise in futility, with the Republicans clearly in their pockets. But when the Democrats try to do something to change things, then the right wing Americans can be predictably be counted on to scream about gov’t interference and heavy handedness.

    Sorry, in this world you can not have it both ways. I’d rather have a scheme run by people I can get rid of at the polling booth rather than one owned lock, stock and barrel by Wall Street who simply bribe as many politicians as it takes to keep the gravy train running their way.

  • Todd Sauve
    Todd Sauve

    PS again;

    And if you don’t think it is really that simple once you boil away all the BS then you are naive indeed.

  • Profile photo of Andrew
    Andrew

    Todd, are you sure you’re not just as uninformed? Your comments seem rather vitriolic on an ideology and all too defensive and somewhat contradictory. You also use a false equivalence falacy quite a bit.

    1) Not all uninsured Americans are uninsured because they don’t qualify. Many are uninsured by choice.

    2) Generally speaking a hospital or medical facility cannot leave a person to die. This is dictated by law. Even the uninsured have a right to life saving medical treatment. The result is massive debt to be paid back on the costs, but it is up to the individual to decide–not the insurance company. The insurance company only decides what they will pay for, nothing more. There is no law that states you can only be treated for what they insurance company will pay for. At least not in America, that is. I don’t know, is Canada different in that the insurance dictates what can and can’t actually be treated? (If so, I find that ideologically reprehensible)

    3) Being insured does not guarantee anything. You contradict yourself by admitting to rationing but then go on to say “but at least everyone is insured” as if that somehow makes it better. But it really doesn’t. It’s still rationed. It’s still a choice of death or life made by a political body.

    4) Easy access to insurance inflates medical costs like you wouldn’t believe. It’s basic economics. By artifically keeping the price point lower than equilibrium, quantity demanded goes far above what the market can actually provide and runs these groups out of business. The US government recently had to cut off enrollment under their new policy of insuring pre-existing conditions. Why? They were running out of money to fund it.

    5) People seem to think that insurance is some magical money tree that they have a right to and cannot live without. I just don’t understand that concept. Insurance is a contract you strike with a business. You pay them a little bit to help mitigate a future risk of something. It’s a gamble. You may pay more than you ever get out of it, or you may get a payout more than you pay in. But that’s all it is. Sending in money to mitigate the risk of a future disaster. It’s the same as a savings account in that way, but with certain contractual obligations.

    What if instead of paying for insurance, you just saved a set amount each month for health expenses? In fact some banks even have specific accounts for those that have different rules based on government regulations. But even a plain old savings account can help mitigate your risk. The trade off with insurance is that the company is bearing the risk for you and many others, minimizing your out of pocket expenses based off your risk factors and the cost of coverage they anticipate from you.

    So of course they operate for profit. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks that insurance companies should simply exist for their own personal sake. That more greedy than an insurance company seeking after profit, in my opinion. In a business, the goal is always to make money. But for another to say that something should exist and cover them for their own benefit that’s it… that mentality speaks more of greed than the profit motive.

    6) And then insurance companies are so tightly regulated that it’s not a free enterprise. There’s no ability to shop around. There’s no free market of insurance. And needless to say with the other regulations of the medical industry, the costs and risks to the doctor are higher. Which is why treatment costs so much in the first place that insurance seems like a necessity just to live. There’s the story of a doctor who recently dropped all insurance and will no longer accept it–patients have to pay out of pocket and seek reimbursement through their company if possible. His rates fell, he frees up more time, and is a more efficient doctor. (I hope more follow his path)

    7) You should post the numbers to back up your claim on the costs. Were you looking at it per capita? Per government? The dollars flowing into the industry over all? Were you accounting for the government subsidies or even the outright cap on what it can charge for some procedures? (Capping a charge doesn’t make it cost less!). Were you looking at it as a ratio against Total America and Total Canada by gross expenditures? If so, only costing 60% but having a significantly less than 60% of the population of America should be quite telling as to the true cost of the program. If you were looking at it on a per capita basis, you should include allowances for the caps on charges. And then of course the US self-selection of insurance inflates per capita spending here as healthier uninsured people are less likely to seek treatment for mild issues.

    The Canadian system is just as broken as the American system. Both need significant overhauls. And yes, freer market principles and less centralized control. Defending a garbage system doesn’t make it any less garbage.

  • Todd Sauve
    Todd Sauve

    John,

    You wrote:

    “Todd, I’ve seen the results of socialism in Eastern Europe. I don’t fear it, I abhor it because it is built upon a corrupt mindset. All one has to do is go into a BMV to see how government bureaucracies work. For that matter, I cannot even get my mail around here delivered in a responsible manner. I don’t have to look very far for how government interference always, always, always screws things up.

    Furthermore, Michael Moore makes Anne Coulter seem like a rational person. I’m not going to view his film because he is an idiot.

    I suggest you place your faith in God and not in forms of government or economy.”

    It seems you cannot tell the difference between totalitarian communism and democratic socialism.

    If you refuse to look at Sicko because it was made by Michael Moore, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Truth is truth, even when presented by someone you do not favour. Don’t let your emotions over ride your opportunity to learn something, even if you don’t like the messenger.

    I do put my faith in God. But we are stuck in a world run by governments and we have a God given responsibility to do our part in seeing things are done in a fair a honest manner.

    How can you honestly complain about your health care system when you won’t even take the time to see who is telling the truth and who is lying?

    Can you actually believe that God and Jesus approve of your “stick my head in the sand” approach to sorting things out?

    Here is a little bit of a spoiler. Even former Cigna health care executive Wendell Potter, who ran the industry’s smear campaign against “Sicko”, admits that what Michael Moore documents in “Sicko” is the truth.

    You are on the verge of me losing serious respect for you John if you simply refuse to watch the documentary because you dislike Michael Moore. You are called by Jesus Christ to do better than this!

    • Profile photo of
      John D

      Todd Suave wrote: “It seems you cannot tell the difference between totalitarian communism and democratic socialism.”

      Time.

      “By the way, much of the US is run on socialistic principles. Like your federally run educational system, fire departments and national defence. If you don’t realise that that is socialism then you simply don’t know what you are talking about. ;)”

      Actually, fire departments are not, unless they now have been placed under the Department of Homeland Security. I’m sure that’s only a matter of time, actually.

      Education? It wasn’t always, was it? That too is a problem, and it became so only as America’s power peaked, much like the rest of it.

      National defense is not a social program. Period. You complain about sticking my head in the sand when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

      Socialism is only one stepping stone away from total tyranny, and to believe anything else is to be in denial. It is nothing less than a bait and switch tactic to gain power. By its very nature, socialism is handing over power to a centralized government, and power corrupts. It becomes a drug in which the government requires more and more.

      America was built upon individualism tempered by a belief in God. We are quickly losing both. We have forgotten from whence we came, and therefore are doomed to follow the path of all great nations.

      And, for the record, I do not see out Britney Spears for my entertainment, NBC for news or attention hounds like Michael Moore for truth. Michael Moore, frankly, is part of the problem. So is Anne Coulter. It is people like them that make civil discourse impossible in this culture.

      • Todd Sauve
        Todd Sauve

        John and Andrew,

        There are none so blind as those who refuse to look at the truth, regardless of who might proclaim it. Michael Moore is on your hit list. I can understand that he lacks credibility in certain areas but the US health care industry is not one of them, as even his fiercest industry critic, former Humana and Cigna executive Wendell Potter, admits.

        I am not a socialist and neither do I propose the US become a socialist state. However, there are certain industries that private enterprise has proven itself to be corrupt in running, regardless of country. The medical insurance industry is one of them. That’s why no industrialised country in the world, other than the US, has left it in their hands, and by taking it under the state’s control have saved themselves immense amounts of money.

        As for national defence, of course it is not a social program! That has nothing to do with it. National defence is far too important to be left in the hands of people whose main concern is making a profit. Thus it is run by government in every country that I know of.

        Finally, I have never said the Canadian system is perfect. If I have please quote me. I have said that is more economically efficient, that everyone gets coverage and lastly no one goes bankrupt over medical costs in Canada. No one can seriously make that claim about the US system.

        However, if you trust your own government so little that you would rather see your country go bankrupt over these and other issues, then have at it. I do believe, nevertheless, that you will rue the day you decided to bury your head in the sand and refuse to even look at your problems, just because you don’t like the person who is telling you the actual facts. That is the funny thing about so many Americans. They have been so indoctrinated into believing that everything about government is bad that they are guaranteeing their own ultimate doom. God does endorse government for a reason, even in this age of misrule. Nothing is perfect, but we do have to make the best of what we’ve got or we end up with anarchy. Bon appetite …

        • Profile photo of
          John D

          Todd Suave wrote: “As for national defence, of course it is not a social program! That has nothing to do with it.”

          Then, why did you bring it up? It has nothing to do with socialism or democracy. Yet, you bring it up as “socialism”, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

          “However, if you trust your own government so little that you would rather see your country go bankrupt over these and other issues, then have at it.”

          Just when I think you couldn’t get more out of it…! Have you looked at the national debt lately? Who is doing the borrowing? It is the government. The government really is a major part of the problem. The other major problem is the decline of morals.

          Don’t forget, the US was founded because of a distrust in government. However, we have replaced In God We Trust with In Politics We Trust.

          “I do believe, nevertheless, that you will rue the day you decided to bury your head in the sand and refuse to even look at your problems, just because you don’t like the person who is telling you the actual facts.”

          So, what are you advocating now, Todd? What will you surprise us with next? Political activism? Is that what the COG stands for now? Is that what Jesus would advocate? Man’s government is the problem, not the cure.

        • Profile photo of Andrew
          Andrew

          “There are none so blind as those who refuse to look at the truth, regardless of who might proclaim it. Michael Moore is on your hit list. ”

          What makes his word truth? Because he says so? Because one of his critics felt guilty after a social issue and said so? Because you say so? I require more data than that. It would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise. Especially when the man who made the documentary is a documented liar and fraud who, as John said, has an axe to grind.

          Why would I believe any documentary outright? I would disregard a pro-health care industry documentary with someone in a stake for succeeding just as well.

          Todd, I asked you legitimate questions that you have completely left unchallenged. These are questions that would have to be satisfactorily answered before I could possibly take your statements at face value just because you said them. I state again, the burden of proof is on you. You can say that it is us refusing to see the truth. But who refused to answer the questions?

          I question and doubt your position because I have no reason to believe it is correct. All my background, education, and experience leads me to this conclusion. But if you can provide a logical reasoning that all of it is wrong–based on facts and data–you could win me over.

  • Todd Sauve
    Todd Sauve

    By the way, much of the US is run on socialistic principles. Like your federally run educational system, fire departments and national defence. If you don’t realise that that is socialism then you simply don’t know what you are talking about. ;)

  • Profile photo of Andrew
    Andrew

    Todd,

    Wikipedia is not a primary source. Nor is it a reasonable ending for research. (You are not the only one to have researched, mind you– just because others come to different conclusions does not make them uninformed). You could at least have linked to the sources they cite in the article, after all. Get some primary sources of all types. Especially given that you completely ignored my statements and questions in favor of trying to get me to research it further. Burden of proof is not on me. It’s on you. So, my post up there still stands unchallenged.

    Take for example, the health spending per capita chart on that entry does not take into account capped payments or government subsidies or the amount of taxes that an individual has to pay dedicated to health care. It’s downright misleading to say that health care costs 60% per capita without accounting for those factors. And since economic theory (and data) bears out that a socialized system is inefficient, the true costs of the system are not going to be less with more inefficiencies. You can’t get better mileage out of a motor in need of repair.

    Also trusting in a Michael Moore documentary is like getting your news from Bill Maher, or taking a column from The Onion at face value. The man has been shown to outright fabricate and make stuff up for his “documentaries”. He has an axe to grind and a specific viewpoint to get across to begin with. Do you think he would’ve filmed and released a documentary that showed evidence contrary to the position he wanted to get across? No. That would be ludicrous.

    Everyone knows the current American system is broken. But it’s been broken by a lot of government hobbling of it. The American system was not even close to a free market. It already had its legs broken by the government, who then used that to get more and more c0ntrol of it. A broken system should not lead to handing all the power over to the government. That’s ditch jumping at its finest and only buying into the power-grabs of politicians.

    And I again point out that medical procedures cannot be denied by insurance companies. They can only deny coverage of it. But undertaking the procedure is the choice of the people involved. Why demonize the insurance companies for denying to pay for a procedure when families themselves also will not pay for it and take on the burden of debt for the life of their loved one? Oh yes, the insurance companies have the money, sure (and are not innocent of unmitigated and destructive greed), but they have no say on what you can and can’t do–government does.

    This just goes to demonstrate how broken all the systems really are. But setting up a crippled and chained American system as an example of a free market failing in favor of a white-washed beautiful state run system out of Canada is ridiculous. The American system is hardly a free market (and becoming even less so) and government control really isn’t any better.

  • Profile photo of Paul
    Paul

    This is very interesting. I’m sure when Michael Moore goes for his inevitable heart surgery or knee replacements he won’t be going to Canada or Cuba for them.

    • Profile photo of
      John D

      @Paul: I dunno. I think he would. I remember someone speaking who had researched his life. Moore is if anything a man looking for an axe to grind. I doubt he could pass up such an opportunity for publicity.

Comments are closed.