Stand in Line...like the Canadians.

It seems that I have been prefacing many of my posts with the phrase "It would be ideal..." Here is yet another one: While it would be ideal that every American have the opportunity to have a "good" healthcare plan, I have to say, I don't believe that the Universal plan is the way to go. Though it is not official, word is spreading that former Senator Tom Daschle will be named Secretary of Health and Human Services (hmmm...he sure was active in that Clinton administration--loving all this CHANGE). With the "spreading rumor" of this appointment, our lovely Senators have begun to "hit the ground running" to press ahead on healthcare issues, despite the poor economy. Check out this blog from NY Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/senators-begin-setting-agenda-on-health-care/ A couple of questions. 1) What is this agenda they speak of? 2) Can someone please define for me "meaningful health care reform?" (Why can't we get a straight answer ANYWHERE?!?!--because this sure doesn't answer any questions I have...) And with that...what everybody keeps pointing at is the Universal Healthcare System in Canada and Great Britain. Ha. Seems to me some peeps need to catch up on their reading. "Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin's insurance didn't: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada. When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin's favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab." Is it not concerning that these countries that have relied on socialized healthcare are starting to look at private sectors for health care? From same article as above: Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system's problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week," he fumed to the New York Times, "and in which humans can wait two to three years."And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day's clinic, for instance, handles workers'-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital's emergency room.This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain's government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization"—now openly favors privatization. Come on. LEARN FROM OTHER'S MISTAKES and ACTIONS. England has had a National Health Service since the 1940s and are now openly favoring privatization. Riddle me this? IF MEDICARE and MEDICAID are not working NOW, why on earth do these government officials believe they can move us ALL to one healthcare system?!? (Bi-partisan statement, anti-politican statement: I mean, they manage our money so well as it is...) All I know is--when it's my turn to need something, or my mother's turn, or my father's turn or any loved one of mine's turn...I'll be DAMNED if they're going to have to wait in line for healthcare because BO and friends think we need to give everyone the same amount of healthcare. You get in what you put in. EDITED November 21 , 2008: After speaking with The Social Worker last night (her character will likely be introduced soon to this blog), we both decided it's not Universal Health Care this country needs. In fact, Universal ANYTHING will make this country worse (ahhh--and you read it right, someone in the Social Welfare system is agreeing with me...more to come on that). What we need is the Feds to put stricter regulations on those blasted insurance companies that make you pay $400/month to be insured, yet won't cover your birth control (though, in case you're wondering, Viagra IS covered). **Side note. I know Birth Control is frowned upon, especially in my religious community. But I also grew up in the Public School system and have watched how young people learn at a very early age how to take advantage of the system...simply by having those bebes. I DO support birth control (NOT to be mistaken with if you have already conceived) and believe strongly that insurance companies should support birth control as well. Well, unless they're wanting to inherit a bebe because Mama got knocked up?