If you are wondering what the end game is for Government controlled / directed healthcare check out this article today in a British newspaper where a prominent physician claims that Britains National Health Service is killing off 123,000 elderly people per year.
Apparently the government's health service developed a protocol for handling patients who are deemed terminally ill, unable to recover. This protocol is a "pathway" that usually leads to death within 33 hours and includes withholding treatment for their ailment, denial or food and water for tube fed patients, etc.
This respected physician claims that this protocol has now become something used in hospitals to reduce over crowding and to get rid of difficult patients. Rather than actually treat an elderly patient who might require an extended hospital stay and a lot of resources because of their condition they just put them on this "pathway" to a quick death.
Here is the link to the actual article in the Daily MaIL newspaper;
__________________ "I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
In America, if a patient doesn't have the insurance necessary (or the money) to pay for the treatment(s) of a terminal illness that might require life saving treatment of some prescription drugs or certain medical procedures (such as dialysis or transplant operations) the patient is often denied a life saving drug or operation.
In America, if a patient doesn't have the insurance necessary (or the money) to pay for the treatment(s) of a terminal illness that might require life saving treatment of some prescription drugs or certain medical procedures (such as dialysis or transplant operations) the patient is often denied a life saving drug or operation.
I don't understand how people can act like they don't already know this to be the truth.
Directing or requiring all Americans to be responsible for their own healthcare is not the worst thing since polio.
That's exactly what the healthcare law does-- forces people to be responsible for their own healthcare insurance, which in the long run will ultimately ease the personal healthcare costs and burdens from the government to individual citizens and private companies.
There's good and bad with healthcare reform, but to compare our reform to what the article is speaking of is not congruent.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
No big difference. A mandate is a mandate - it's socialism. And it doesn't work, economically, on any level - federal or state (10th Amendment).
The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
• cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
• drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
• slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
• reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.
Quote:
The Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank at Suffolk that conducts economic research, has garnered media attention for a report it released claiming that so-called RomneyCare took jobs 18,000 away from the state and raised insurance costs.
Romney’s healthcare bill added about $4 billion to healthcare premium since its inception in 2007, which translated into fewer jobs, according to Tuerck.
“If it costs you more now as an employer to hire another person because of increased healthcare—that’s how it translates into fewer jobs,” he said.
The Beacon Hill Institute hasn’t directly studied the national healthcare bill signed into law by President Obama, but Tuerck predicted that it will have a much bigger impact on health costs.
“There’s no place to shift the costs. Under RomneyCare, the state shifted half the costs to the federal government and most of the other half to individual families and policy holders,” he said. “We can’t do that with ObamaCare. There’s no place for the costs to go.”
Linear Mode
