THE GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO HELP HEALTH CARE
Re: Peter Ferrara’s Murder by Bureaucracy:
A headline in today’s (June 10) Daily Telegraph:
“NHS facing £15bn ($24.6 billion) budget shortfall”
So nationalizing health care is going to save money? Puh-leez, pull the other one, It’s got bells on it!
— Gretchen L. Chellson
I have been around and I remember when the hospital was a non-profit organization. When they placed their operations on Wall Street, that is when the rooms went from 89 dollars a day to over a grand today. It was the single item that most caused health care to skyrocket. I am not for national health care, we have seen it does not work, and will only exacerbate the problem of uncontrolled costs. To work from another angle but leave the health system we have intact may save some money out of pocket for the insured but to have a committee to determine what care one gets is what I would call practicing medicine with out a license. It did not work out well in Canada, nor in the UK, so why anyone would want to use those countries as models is beyond my thinking. If Obama wants to bring this country down on its knees he is doing the right things, if not then he is one dolt and a half.
— Ken Roberts
The question that is not asked nor answered is “Will the government subject itself to its own healthcare bureaucracy?” Were I a betting man, I’d bet that the answer to that question is “no.”
Further, if the politicians and the bureaucrats submit themselves and their loved ones to the healthcare bureaucracy, who will monitor the application of exceptions? And will those exceptions be granted more freely to the politicians, the bureaucrats, and their loved ones? That’s another proposition I’d have a hard time betting against.
By the way, folks, they (Obama and the Dems) will be betting with our lives and those of the people we love.
— Reid Bogie
Mr. Ferrara is , once again, on the mark. The 30% “waste” is probably related to doing “protective tests” such as CAT scans for ANYONE with a headache, for fear that the missed brain tumor will come back in a lawsuit. The current waste is in the bureaucracy itself, where countless dollars abound to pay for clerks to shoot down medical claims which are legitimate. In many cases, the clerks are earning more than the doctors providing the care. Now, that is the government at its best! I wonder though, how the plaintiff bar will fare in all this. They can’t sue the provider, if the provider is the government, can they?
— Robert Mandraccia
Ft Myers, Florida
SNAKE OIL MODERATION
Re: David N. Bass’s An Abortion Extremist in Moderate Clothing:
“Common ground” my Uncle Willard’s posterior. It is, as demonstrated, no such thing. It is the same old story when Obama opens his mouth — he is lying thru his teeth. I also swear to myself every time I see a news wire or opinion piece when they describe Tiller’s butcher shop as a clinic. I recently heard Rush Limbaugh lecture a caller who he said went too far by comparing the actions of Obama to those of Hitler, but if the shoe fits…
— Jack Wheatley
Royal Oak, Michigan
“[C]ome together” is Obamaspeak for “agree with me.” “Sensible conscience clause” is Obamaspeak for “agree with me.” “[A]ll of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science…” is Obamaspeak for…well, you see where this is going.
— Gretchen L. Chellson
NO SKIN IN THE GAME
Re: Christopher Orlet’s Keeping the Militants Happy:
In Cairo, The One delivered a Chamberlain-like speech. Our Dear Leader is willing to give away lands that are not his. Once again, the left demonstrates that somehow sacrifices are always easier to stomach when the sacrifices are made at the expense of others. Those who seek peace at any cost would be well served by remembering that taking a moral stand is never cowardice, but taking a stand on your brother’s neck always is.
— I. M. Kessel
Re: Roger Scruton’s Farewell to Judgment:
Roger Scruton’s article highlights the central shift to a perspective of post-modernism. Charles Taylor also describes this phenomenon as “expressive individualism” whereby the individual goals of personal development and self-expression override of any judgment of value or taste. This is a climate that holds all forms of authority suspect because there is no recognition of universal truths. Everything is relative. It seems to me that this is untenable. We need to search for THE truth and to value what we hold to be true even while recognizing that one can never possess truth in its entirety and thus everything is conditional and subject to revision.
— Mark Mance
THE CONSERVATIVE’S GANDHI
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s Westminster Implodes:
As things in Westminster continue to implode, Dr. Hal Colebatch’s fine article raises questions that all governments and all countries must face and must remedy to the extent that it is possible — human wickedness being what it is and is likely to remain.
He writes about the British administration of India, and by extension, about Africa and the rest of the once great British Empire as well. So, from the man who did much to remove the British from India — Mahatma Gandhi — a pertinent quote:
“Beware of people who promise you a political system so perfect that no one will have to be good.”
The Mahatma could also have substituted “financial system,” “medical system,” “education system,” and so on.
— Nicholas Partridge
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.