Death panels? What death panels?

More health news out of the UK; the epicenter of socialized health care.

Growing numbers of patients are being denied treatment for conditions such as loss of sight, arthritis and infertility* as the NHS increasingly rations healthcare in order to save money, research by the Guardian shows.

Services for patients with mental health problems and addictions and those who need physiotherapy after accidents are being scaled back, while operations to fix hernias or remove cataracts or varicose veins are either being refused or delayed.

Naturally the Conservatives are being blamed. After all, fuzzy-bunny Labour just kept dumping untold amounts of money into the NHS – not that it did any good. Canada throws money at the problem all the time, too, and yet still people are being triaged through a Tim Horton’s in the lobby.

Until such time as the NHS and other commie health services around the globe realize that they need to start cutting management and admin positions, the problem won’t improve. Health services need fewer administrators, less regulation that requires administrators, and more fucking doctors!

*Fertility is not a right, I’m sorry. It’s a natural biological function, but not one that is life threatening. For example, if you are constipated more than 5 days, you need to see a doctor to have that function regulated. If you can’t conceive, you won’t die. The NHS should no more be paying for fertility as for boob jobs on trannies.

Proof that Bolivia's drug problem is out of hand




3 Responses to “Death panels? What death panels?”

  1. Maureen says:

    I’ve always felt that you could take all the taxes from every source available and give them to the health care system and it still would not be enough – the demand and expectations would just increase.

    We need to rethink the whole process and start from the beginning and yes that means some procedures will not get funded and people will have to take more responsibility for their health.

    And the federal government out there recruiting doctors and nurses is a useless activity – hello Jack – don’t go there.

  2. Pissedoff says:

    Of course the tories are getting the blame, the Guardian is to the UK what the Toronto Star is to Canada. You forget unlike Canada the UK does not have a dictatorial law banning private health care and insurance.

  3. Brian says:

    You are right about infertility treatment not being life threatening, but neither is abortion on demand, vasectomies, tubal ligation etc but aren’t they all covered? When you think about it, it’s sick to cover someones treatment to kill their unborn child when not medically necessary to save a mothers life, but a positive thing like helping a family create the child they so desperatly want isn’t covered. I would like to state I am not against abortion, just the hypocrisy of funding one and not the other.

    If you really want to think of it in monetary terms look at it from a social point of view. We are constantly told immigration is great, our country needs more people, but which option is cheaper?

    1. Paying for infertile Canadian couples of all ethnicities to help increase our population, knowing that the parents will pay for most everything the child needs, as well as contribute to the country in taxes.
    2. Bringing in immigrants who for the most part then require tens or more likly hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in government expenditures to pay for things like; English language training, welfare and tax credits and rebates, subsidized housing, healthcare, job retraining, schooling, etc. For the most part recent immigrants don’t contibute tax dollars like established Canadians to pay for all the social programs etc that we take for granted in our Country. Don’t get me started on family reunification where the elderly parents come and drain the health care system, and retirement homes as well. It really is sad when Canadians of all ethnicities who have contributed taxes most of their lives, are not able access what they need, and in reality have paid for, because someone who has not contributed at all is in their spot.

    Sorry, got a little off topic, but my point is valid. In the long run if the government policy is to increase the population of Canada, it is much cheaper to pay for fertility treatment and build up the population from inside the country.

Leave a Reply