Pelosi makes the argument against Universal Healthcare

We all want affordable healthcare. We all would like to believe that our prospects for living as long as scientifically possible should be assured, by government if necessary.

We all know, consciously or unconsciously that like Freedom, healthcare isn't free.

Since we all know this, the question is, who pays?

Well, we know know that we pay. Whether we pay premiums out of pocket or we share the cost with an employer, or we in taxes, we pay.

So the only argument seems to be, who is most efficient at taking our money and delivering all the healthcare we are likely to need.

But this is not the fundamental argument for me. For me the fundamental argument is who controls my healthcare: me or the Government.

If the Government controls access to healthcare, they could decide that certain types of illnesses are not "cost-effective" to treat. We have seen examples of this in countries that have Universal healcare and in this regard I like to point out the Netherlands where it was decided by the Government there that certain types of births defects could result in "termination" of the infant against the will of the parents.

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12....

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

(emphasis mine)

Over the weekend, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave us a clue as to how things might work here if we ever adopted Universal Healthcare.

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So to Nancy Pelosi children are a burden on the healcare system. Well, true, but so is everyone who requires healthcare services. In fact the longer you live the more of a burden you become.

And there is a school of thought that says that healthcare services should be prioritized by how likely an individual is going to be able to contribute to society.

And retired folks wouldn't pass such a test. Combine that with the stress on Social Security, it may very well become expedient for the Government to decide to withhold health care to retired people.

Or people who are mentally disabled.

Or people who just don't eat right.

Speaker Pelosi let slip a glimpse of how the dispensation of healthcare might go if and when Government ever controls healthcare in this country.

And your access would be especially vulnerable during times of economic stress.

Something gas to be done about controlling healthcare costs. But giving it to government is a conflict of interest on such a scale that it is unacceptable.