Obama's Next Dilemma?,What If Patients Die Waiting For Treatment Or Doctor Shortage?

[Oldstyle]

I am curious screaming eagle, can you name one country that has scrapped it's health care program to adopt our program? And I should point out that IF are health care system is so good why are we not #1 the longivity. We are not even in the top 5 countries, the top 10 countries, etc. With our wonderful healthcare system we #32. People in the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore can expect to live longer than people in the US.

the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore are small places compared to the U.S......besides who knows how they gather their data....?

why don't you move to Cuba.....it's supposed to have the best healthcare in the world.....

As I understand it Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world and they do it at a fraction of the cost of what we pay. That said, there are other factors involved in where a person chooses to live. For example, you want the government to get out of the way. You are claiming that it is the government screwing everything up. Let me give you a suggestion. Have you ever considered moving to Somolia? There is almost no government at all. Taxes are amazingly low and nobody tells busines what they must do or how they should behave.
And by the way, my point, which you choose to ignore, is that we're #1 in money spent on health care yet there are #32 countries where people live longer on average than Americans. It seems to me that IF we are spending all that money and are 33rd on the list we must be doing something wrong. Only someone who is blind, deaf, and dumb or completly closed minded could miss that rather simple fact.

If the reason those other 32 countries had people living longer was because of the quality of their healthcare systems then you might have a point, Ron. Is that the case however...or does America have a serious problem with things like obesity that simply doesn't exist elsewhere? I think that American healthcare is amongst the best in the world. I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from.

My other question for you is this...what in ObamaCare lowers the price tag for healthcare for the average middle class American? It's a boon for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor who will have their care subsidized...but what are the benefits for the average middle class American that will now be paying more to subsidize others?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Apparently you failed to read your own link.

If you bother to read it, you will see that the proposed changes are remarkably similar to the ACA.



Note the area that talks about having people choose from state approved policies offered by private insurance.... Sound familiar?

Note the area that talks about state subsidies for low income folks... Sound familiar?

Of course, first you have to know what the ACA is all about before you can make a comparison.

Try again...

wow.....you are totally in denial aren't you.....?

the fact is the socialized medicine types are moving TOWARD the free market in order to solve their problems....not the other way.....

meanwhile the fuckup Dimwits here are heading us toward socialized medicine....higher costs and less care....

Ok... It is possible you are reading the article you linked, but you just are not comphrending what it says.

Try again and pay particular attention to the areas I pointed out earlier.

Cherry picking statements and providing them out of context does nothing to increase your understanding if the issue.

specifically what is your point of contention....? i am not going to do a research paper for you....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What will be more interesting is how the right spins it. The have had a campaign of lies and misinformation right from the start. Remember the famous Death Panels and "Obama wants to kill granny." It has been one lie after another from the right which is why I no longer hear them or pay attention to their claims.

I've got news for you, Ron...there will have to be rationing of healthcare. You can give it any name you want but the fact remains that we don't have enough doctors to take care of the additional people who will now have government subsidized healthcare or serious health issues. Anyone who's had the misfortune to have to visit a hospital ER lately knows how bad the waits are NOW...just wait until ObamaCare kicks in! It's gonna get ugly, fast!

We have rationing of health care now. Every time I have a procedure done or see a doc other than my PCP, I have to get authorization from my insurance. There have been times when they have not authorized treatment that the doc prescribed.

which is exactly why we need to have more free market healthcare than we do now...

 

[Oldstyle]

What will be more interesting is how the right spins it. The have had a campaign of lies and misinformation right from the start. Remember the famous Death Panels and "Obama wants to kill granny." It has been one lie after another from the right which is why I no longer hear them or pay attention to their claims.

I've got news for you, Ron...there will have to be rationing of healthcare. You can give it any name you want but the fact remains that we don't have enough doctors to take care of the additional people who will now have government subsidized healthcare or serious health issues. Anyone who's had the misfortune to have to visit a hospital ER lately knows how bad the waits are NOW...just wait until ObamaCare kicks in! It's gonna get ugly, fast!

That is exactly what you are hoping for, isn't it?
Yes, there will be problems, just as there were problems when Medicare kicked in. Those problems were solved. Now try and repeal Medicare and see how far you will get. The same thing will happen with ACA.
Interesting name you have chosen. When I see the words "old style" I think of something that has not changed. Applied to a person it would mean someone who prefers the past and does not want future change. It would refer to someone who was content with a world where nothing changed and who preferred a past they knew over a future they feared. It would infer a willingness to stay still or move backward rather than moving forward. But that is just what I think.

Actually I'm a person who still believes in some of the "old fashioned" virtues that made this country exceptional. Self reliance...a good work ethic...pride in whatever it is you do...those kind of "old style" things. If you think getting away from those things is "progress" then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.

 

[Oldstyle]

And pointing out looming problems isn't hoping for them to happen. That's nonsense. We're about to be faced with a serious shortage of doctors. It's not something I'm hoping will happen but I'm realistic enough to be pretty sure that it WILL happen.

 

[Oldstyle]

What will be more interesting is how the right spins it. The have had a campaign of lies and misinformation right from the start. Remember the famous Death Panels and "Obama wants to kill granny." It has been one lie after another from the right which is why I no longer hear them or pay attention to their claims.

I've got news for you, Ron...there will have to be rationing of healthcare. You can give it any name you want but the fact remains that we don't have enough doctors to take care of the additional people who will now have government subsidized healthcare or serious health issues. Anyone who's had the misfortune to have to visit a hospital ER lately knows how bad the waits are NOW...just wait until ObamaCare kicks in! It's gonna get ugly, fast!

We have rationing of health care now. Every time I have a procedure done or see a doc other than my PCP, I have to get authorization from my insurance. There have been times when they have not authorized treatment that the doc prescribed.

If that is happening in a competitive market what do you think is going to happen in a healthcare system controlled by the government? Now you have the choice of switching to another insurance carrier...that choice will not be there if the Federal government is making the calls on what will or will not be covered. I'm not being melodramatic, Barb...I'm just pointing out the reality of what we're getting ourselves into.

 

[ron4342]

the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore are small places compared to the U.S......besides who knows how they gather their data....?

why don't you move to Cuba.....it's supposed to have the best healthcare in the world.....

As I understand it Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world and they do it at a fraction of the cost of what we pay. That said, there are other factors involved in where a person chooses to live. For example, you want the government to get out of the way. You are claiming that it is the government screwing everything up. Let me give you a suggestion. Have you ever considered moving to Somolia? There is almost no government at all. Taxes are amazingly low and nobody tells busines what they must do or how they should behave.
And by the way, my point, which you choose to ignore, is that we're #1 in money spent on health care yet there are #32 countries where people live longer on average than Americans. It seems to me that IF we are spending all that money and are 33rd on the list we must be doing something wrong. Only someone who is blind, deaf, and dumb or completly closed minded could miss that rather simple fact.

If the reason those other 32 countries had people living longer was because of the quality of their healthcare systems then you might have a point, Ron. Is that the case however...or does America have a serious problem with things like obesity that simply doesn't exist elsewhere? I think that American healthcare is amongst the best in the world. I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from.

My other question for you is this...what in ObamaCare lowers the price tag for healthcare for the average middle class American? It's a boon for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor who will have their care subsidized...but what are the benefits for the average middle class American that will now be paying more to subsidize others?

That is such a bullshit argument that I can't believe it is still being used.
"I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from."
Who are the people coming here for health care? It is not the ordinary people who are coming here. It is the people who are super wealthy, the 1%'s. And that leads to this thought: YOU COULD LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MAYO CLINIC BUT IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY OR THE INSURANCE IT MIGHT AS WELL BE ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED. Fine we have great doctors and great hospitals that 90% of the people cannot afford. How does that help this country if its citizens cannot get the treatments they need.
And as to your second question I can only say this. I believe that as Americans we should work to help each other rather than turning our backs on fellow Americans. That was one of the characteristics that made this country great. If there was a flood in the midwest there was no question about voting emergency aid for the people affected. If there was a hurricane in Florida the same thing applied. Same thing for people caught in tornado's or wild fires. Today we have legislators who want aid when their state is hit but who will vote down aid for other states. I don't believe in "I've got mine, who cares if the people without insurance die before their time.? That is the argument you are advancing.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As I understand it Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world and they do it at a fraction of the cost of what we pay. That said, there are other factors involved in where a person chooses to live. For example, you want the government to get out of the way. You are claiming that it is the government screwing everything up. Let me give you a suggestion. Have you ever considered moving to Somolia? There is almost no government at all. Taxes are amazingly low and nobody tells busines what they must do or how they should behave.
And by the way, my point, which you choose to ignore, is that we're #1 in money spent on health care yet there are #32 countries where people live longer on average than Americans. It seems to me that IF we are spending all that money and are 33rd on the list we must be doing something wrong. Only someone who is blind, deaf, and dumb or completly closed minded could miss that rather simple fact.

If the reason those other 32 countries had people living longer was because of the quality of their healthcare systems then you might have a point, Ron. Is that the case however...or does America have a serious problem with things like obesity that simply doesn't exist elsewhere? I think that American healthcare is amongst the best in the world. I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from.

My other question for you is this...what in ObamaCare lowers the price tag for healthcare for the average middle class American? It's a boon for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor who will have their care subsidized...but what are the benefits for the average middle class American that will now be paying more to subsidize others?

That is such a bullshit argument that I can't believe it is still being used.
"I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from."
Who are the people coming here for health care? It is not the ordinary people who are coming here. It is the people who are super wealthy, the 1%'s. And that leads to this thought: YOU COULD LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MAYO CLINIC BUT IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY OR THE INSURANCE IT MIGHT AS WELL BE ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED. Fine we have great doctors and great hospitals that 90% of the people cannot afford. How does that help this country if its citizens cannot get the treatments they need.
And as to your second question I can only say this. I believe that as Americans we should work to help each other rather than turning our backs on fellow Americans. That was one of the characteristics that made this country great. If there was a flood in the midwest there was no question about voting emergency aid for the people affected. If there was a hurricane in Florida the same thing applied. Same thing for people caught in tornado's or wild fires. Today we have legislators who want aid when their state is hit but who will vote down aid for other states. I don't believe in "I've got mine, who cares if the people without insurance die before their time.? That is the argument you are advancing.

it's not only "the wealthy" coming here.....or haven't you noticed all the Canadians coming down from Canada who want healthcare here in the USA.....instead of their 'wonderful' socialized healthcare in Canada....?

they mainly come here because they have to wait too long for procedures in Canada....here they can get in quickly....wait lines are quite common up north....wait lines are now our future with Obamacare....

 

[ron4342]

I've got news for you, Ron...there will have to be rationing of healthcare. You can give it any name you want but the fact remains that we don't have enough doctors to take care of the additional people who will now have government subsidized healthcare or serious health issues. Anyone who's had the misfortune to have to visit a hospital ER lately knows how bad the waits are NOW...just wait until ObamaCare kicks in! It's gonna get ugly, fast!

That is exactly what you are hoping for, isn't it?
Yes, there will be problems, just as there were problems when Medicare kicked in. Those problems were solved. Now try and repeal Medicare and see how far you will get. The same thing will happen with ACA.
Interesting name you have chosen. When I see the words "old style" I think of something that has not changed. Applied to a person it would mean someone who prefers the past and does not want future change. It would refer to someone who was content with a world where nothing changed and who preferred a past they knew over a future they feared. It would infer a willingness to stay still or move backward rather than moving forward. But that is just what I think.

Actually I'm a person who still believes in some of the "old fashioned" virtues that made this country exceptional. Self reliance...a good work ethic...pride in whatever it is you do...those kind of "old style" things. If you think getting away from those things is "progress" then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.

Those virtues are great but what about people who are down on their luck and can't practice those virtues? What about the workman whose factory closed and who is working two jobs and still does not make enough to feed his family. How can he be self reliant? What about his work ethic when he is on the job 16 hours a day. How can you have real pride in cooking fries or making starvation wages at Walmart? I'm sorry but their are literally millions of people with variations on this story thanks to the recession. And do you want to help them? Of course not. The gop is waging war against the "47%" who are struggling to hang on to what little they have. "Let's cut their SNAP benefits so they have to live on less." "Let's make sure they have no medical insurance so that if they have a major medical problem they will lose their house and put them on the street." "Let's insult them and call them lazy because after 6 months of trying to find a decent job they are still out of work, never mind that there are no jobs available." "Let's not pass any jobs bills because Obama might get credit and we can't have that." "Let's condemn them for not paying taxes when they barely have enough to feed themselves." I could go on Old Style but I doubt if it would have any effect on you.
Surfice to say this, the country you want no longer exists. The old solutions are not working.

 

[ron4342]

And pointing out looming problems isn't hoping for them to happen. That's nonsense. We're about to be faced with a serious shortage of doctors. It's not something I'm hoping will happen but I'm realistic enough to be pretty sure that it WILL happen.

One question: Do you want ACA to succeed or do you want it to fail?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That is exactly what you are hoping for, isn't it?
Yes, there will be problems, just as there were problems when Medicare kicked in. Those problems were solved. Now try and repeal Medicare and see how far you will get. The same thing will happen with ACA.
Interesting name you have chosen. When I see the words "old style" I think of something that has not changed. Applied to a person it would mean someone who prefers the past and does not want future change. It would refer to someone who was content with a world where nothing changed and who preferred a past they knew over a future they feared. It would infer a willingness to stay still or move backward rather than moving forward. But that is just what I think.

Actually I'm a person who still believes in some of the "old fashioned" virtues that made this country exceptional. Self reliance...a good work ethic...pride in whatever it is you do...those kind of "old style" things. If you think getting away from those things is "progress" then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.

Those virtues are great but what about people who are down on their luck and can't practice those virtues? What about the workman whose factory closed and who is working two jobs and still does not make enough to feed his family. How can he be self reliant? What about his work ethic when he is on the job 16 hours a day. How can you have real pride in cooking fries or making starvation wages at Walmart? I'm sorry but their are literally millions of people with variations on this story thanks to the recession. And do you want to help them? Of course not. The gop is waging war against the "47%" who are struggling to hang on to what little they have. "Let's cut their SNAP benefits so they have to live on less." "Let's make sure they have no medical insurance so that if they have a major medical problem they will lose their house and put them on the street." "Let's insult them and call them lazy because after 6 months of trying to find a decent job they are still out of work, never mind that there are no jobs available." "Let's not pass any jobs bills because Obama might get credit and we can't have that." "Let's condemn them for not paying taxes when they barely have enough to feed themselves." I could go on Old Style but I doubt if it would have any effect on you.
Surfice to say this, the country you want no longer exists. The old solutions are not working.

what hogwash.....you only need to look at Obama if you wonder why there are no jobs....

 

[Barbarap]

the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore are small places compared to the U.S......besides who knows how they gather their data....?

why don't you move to Cuba.....it's supposed to have the best healthcare in the world.....

As I understand it Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world and they do it at a fraction of the cost of what we pay. That said, there are other factors involved in where a person chooses to live. For example, you want the government to get out of the way. You are claiming that it is the government screwing everything up. Let me give you a suggestion. Have you ever considered moving to Somolia? There is almost no government at all. Taxes are amazingly low and nobody tells busines what they must do or how they should behave.
And by the way, my point, which you choose to ignore, is that we're #1 in money spent on health care yet there are #32 countries where people live longer on average than Americans. It seems to me that IF we are spending all that money and are 33rd on the list we must be doing something wrong. Only someone who is blind, deaf, and dumb or completly closed minded could miss that rather simple fact.

If the reason those other 32 countries had people living longer was because of the quality of their healthcare systems then you might have a point, Ron. Is that the case however...or does America have a serious problem with things like obesity that simply doesn't exist elsewhere? I think that American healthcare is amongst the best in the world. I say that because people come HERE to get advanced treatments they can't get where they are from.

My other question for you is this...what in ObamaCare lowers the price tag for healthcare for the average middle class American? It's a boon for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor who will have their care subsidized...but what are the benefits for the average middle class American that will now be paying more to subsidize others?

Old style,

Two points....

Yes, people come here for medical care, but a lot of our people go to other countries for medical care too. In fact, don't you remember when Medicare reform kicked in and seniors were forced to go to Mexico and Canada for affordable drugs?

The other point..... Middle class Americans ALREADY subsidize those who can't afford health care through the Medicaid system. However, since Medicaid offers no preventative care and is limited in other ways, we are subsidizing in a way that is not cost effective or performance efficient. Seems it would make more sense to spend the money up front and do it right than to keep digging that hole. Other countries do it for less cost and with better outcomes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

here's a couple points to ponder....

what 'wealthy' people do you know in the US who go to Britain for their healthcare.....?

the NHS in Britain is more worried about keeping costs down than about quality care...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What if the ground opens up and swallows healthcare Obama? Huh? What then?

Actually theSeventhTiger has a valid point, as this is precisely what is happening in Great Britain. The only myth being spread is that a government run health care system will be effective in reducing costs.

 

[Barbarap]

Screaming, when you can demonstrate that you have an elementary understanding of the current health care issue, then I'd be glad to ponder any point you wanna make.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming, when you can demonstrate that you have an elementary understanding of the current health care issue, then I'd be glad to ponder any point you wanna make.

hahaha.....pinhead...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If people can't get an appointment, can't find the right doctor, wait in a crowded ER or die from a mis diagnosis with the ACA, it will be no different than the current system when one can't get an appointment, find a doctor, wait in an ER or get misdiagnosed.

Those kinds of things happen in our current health care system and have been happening long before the ACA.

Other countries have national health care and they do it for a lot less $$ and their outcomes are better. That fact can be found on any search engine from legitimate sources..... If you really want to know, that is.

A small sample of this "much improved" national health care system.

More than 80,000 people a year suffer blood clots and the annual cost to the NHS is £640million.

Campaigners insist NOAC drugs save the health service cash by keeping people out of hospital.

A survey by charity Lifeblood found 64% of GPs had been prevented from giving patients NOAC *medicines by their own practice managers.

Of those, 98% said it was because of the NHS budget cuts brought in by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

One patient, Joga Khera, told how his consultant had *recommended he be given NOAC after developing a blood clot in his leg last year. But his GP would not prescribe them.

The 45-year-old purchasing manager, of Iver, Bucks, said: “They just refused.

NHS cuts: Blood clot patients being denied vital drugs putting lives at risk - Mirror Online

Cancer charities are calling for the Government to pledge it will not go back to days when patients ‘had to beg’ for life-prolonging drugs

Access to cancer medicines will revert to being the worst in Europe, with more than 16,000 patients a year denied help, they say.

16,000 cancer patients a year to be denied vital medicine as Government's specialist drugs fund is wound up | Mail Online

Kidney cancer patients denied life-extending drug as NHS watchdog declares it 'not cost effective' | Mail Online

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The National Health Service is Great Britain’s equivalent of ObamaCare, except it has been around since 1948. The NHS experience gives an excellent view of where we are headed with ObamaCare.
....
Socialized medicine schemes like the NHS have three priorities.

First, the scheme requires complete government control of the national healthcare system. In this way, the government can control prices, costs, medical treatments, standards, and so forth. This is necessary because healthcare consumes a huge portion of government resources.

Second, socialized medicine is about providing equal care to every citizen. This is the basic pretext for instituting socialized medicine – to extend healthcare to those who do not already have it or cannot afford it. However, instead of merely providing taxpayer subsidized care to the have-nots, the promoters of Big Government seize the “crisis” opportunity to take control over everyone’s healthcare.

The priority then becomes making sure everyone gets the same quality of care. This should not be misinterpreted to mean that everyone gets the same high quality care. This is not the aim of socialized medicine. Rather, schemes like ObamaCare and the NHS seek to ensure only that no one gets better care than anyone else.

Third, socialized healthcare is about rationing. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The need for rationing is quite obvious. When healthcare becomes a government function it consumes a huge portion of the national budget. Costs necessarily increase with time as the population increases and people live longer. In addition, medical and technological advances occur; and these can be expensive.

Thus, the rising cost of healthcare must be offset by some combination of higher taxes and cost reductions. Since tax increases are unpopular with the voters and politically toxic, the burden of controlling healthcare’s slice of the government pie falls squarely on reducing costs. Since the government is inherently inefficient and wasteful, few cost reductions can be obtained by conventional means. Rationing healthcare – that is, reducing the amount of care or the quality of care – becomes a necessary and vital strategy of socialized medicine.

cont.
New NHS Horror Stories: Your ObamaCare Future - Charleston Tea Party

 

[Barbarap]

If people can't get an appointment, can't find the right doctor, wait in a crowded ER or die from a mis diagnosis with the ACA, it will be no different than the current system when one can't get an appointment, find a doctor, wait in an ER or get misdiagnosed.

Those kinds of things happen in our current health care system and have been happening long before the ACA.

Other countries have national health care and they do it for a lot less $$ and their outcomes are better. That fact can be found on any search engine from legitimate sources..... If you really want to know, that is.

A small sample of this "much improved" national health care system.

More than 80,000 people a year suffer blood clots and the annual cost to the NHS is £640million.

Campaigners insist NOAC drugs save the health service cash by keeping people out of hospital.

A survey by charity Lifeblood found 64% of GPs had been prevented from giving patients NOAC *medicines by their own practice managers.

Of those, 98% said it was because of the NHS budget cuts brought in by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

One patient, Joga Khera, told how his consultant had *recommended he be given NOAC after developing a blood clot in his leg last year. But his GP would not prescribe them.

The 45-year-old purchasing manager, of Iver, Bucks, said: “They just refused.

NHS cuts: Blood clot patients being denied vital drugs putting lives at risk - Mirror Online

Cancer charities are calling for the Government to pledge it will not go back to days when patients ‘had to beg’ for life-prolonging drugs

Access to cancer medicines will revert to being the worst in Europe, with more than 16,000 patients a year denied help, they say.

16,000 cancer patients a year to be denied vital medicine as Government's specialist drugs fund is wound up | Mail Online

Kidney cancer patients denied life-extending drug as NHS watchdog declares it 'not cost effective' | Mail Online

Nothing you posted negates the FACT that other countries provide healthcare at less cost with better outcomes than the United States.

 

[Barbarap]

The National Health Service is Great Britain’s equivalent of ObamaCare, except it has been around since 1948. The NHS experience gives an excellent view of where we are headed with ObamaCare.
....
Socialized medicine schemes like the NHS have three priorities.

First, the scheme requires complete government control of the national healthcare system. In this way, the government can control prices, costs, medical treatments, standards, and so forth. This is necessary because healthcare consumes a huge portion of government resources.

Second, socialized medicine is about providing equal care to every citizen. This is the basic pretext for instituting socialized medicine – to extend healthcare to those who do not already have it or cannot afford it. However, instead of merely providing taxpayer subsidized care to the have-nots, the promoters of Big Government seize the “crisis” opportunity to take control over everyone’s healthcare.

The priority then becomes making sure everyone gets the same quality of care. This should not be misinterpreted to mean that everyone gets the same high quality care. This is not the aim of socialized medicine. Rather, schemes like ObamaCare and the NHS seek to ensure only that no one gets better care than anyone else.

Third, socialized healthcare is about rationing. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The need for rationing is quite obvious. When healthcare becomes a government function it consumes a huge portion of the national budget. Costs necessarily increase with time as the population increases and people live longer. In addition, medical and technological advances occur; and these can be expensive.

Thus, the rising cost of healthcare must be offset by some combination of higher taxes and cost reductions. Since tax increases are unpopular with the voters and politically toxic, the burden of controlling healthcare’s slice of the government pie falls squarely on reducing costs. Since the government is inherently inefficient and wasteful, few cost reductions can be obtained by conventional means. Rationing healthcare – that is, reducing the amount of care or the quality of care – becomes a necessary and vital strategy of socialized medicine.

cont.
New NHS Horror Stories: Your ObamaCare Future - Charleston Tea Party

There isn't a single thing that you have posted that changes the fact that other countries provide health care for less cost with better outcomes.