Why is it that leftists are so enamored with Canada’s health system?
Sometimes I think I spend more time trying to figure out what makes liberals tick than Einstein spent coming up with his Theory of Relativity, but, then, he was merely dealing with time and space. I, on the other hand, am trying to bring sanity to bear on what gives every appearance of being sheer lunacy.
For instance, if I’d heard liberals suggest that the U.S. should adopt Canada’s health care plan once, I’ve heard it a hundred times. Until recently, the drawbacks I was aware of were that it took huge taxes to support the plan and it could take months to schedule an operation. The one thing I never heard criticized was their drug program. Because the Canadian government negotiated directly with the pharmaceutical companies, we’ve been told incessantly, the cost of drugs was a lot cheaper once you went north of the border.
What I recently discovered painted quite a different picture; one more along the lines of the portrait up in Dorian Gray’s attic. For one thing, the wait for certain operations can take, not just months, but years. Which is why many Canadians, who have already been bled dry to support the program, opt to come south and pay for surgery out of their own threadbare pockets.
Other people who come across the border, but never go back, are doctors and surgeons. Tired of paying those exorbitant taxes and earning far less than their American colleagues, they’re creating a brain drain of sizable proportions.
Even Canada’s highly-touted pharmaceutical program isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It seems that the way it works, Canadians pay less than we do for patented drugs; however, once the patent runs out in a very few years, they have to pay more than we do for most generic drugs.
So, why is it that leftists are so enamored with Canada’s system? Just because they are. It’s for the same reason they’re against capital punishment for serial killers, but for abortions on demand for 13-year-olds. It’s why they’re vehemently opposed to having “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but they’re for handing out sex questionnaires to eight-year-old kids, and condoms to their slightly older brothers. It’s why they’re against locking up the borders to illegal aliens, but they’re for denying law-abiding citizens the right to own guns. Why? Why? Why? Because they’re nuts. Because they read from the playbook that’s been assembled by the likes of James Carville and Ted Kennedy, Chris Matthews and Barbara Boxer, George Soros and Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Michael Moore.
I can no more get into the head of a liberal than that proverbial camel can stroll through the eye of a needle.
Maybe the height of their lunacy is their belief that Muslim terrorists, whether beheading civilians in Iraq, blowing up school children in Tel Aviv, or placing phone calls in New York City, are entitled to all the Constitutional guarantees of American citizens.
Why did five left-wing members of the Supreme Court decide in the Kelo case that city governments have the right to take away your home if some developer decides it’s a good site for a mini-mall? As the Russian landowners discovered to their dismay 75 years ago, Stalin, like Kennedy, Souter and the other three lunkheads who get to wear their bathrobes to work, didn’t believe in private ownership of land and property.
Perhaps I’m on to something here. People like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, recognized that a constant threat to their regimes came from a strong middle class. And so they either killed them, imprisoned them, or re-educated them by means of whips, clubs and electrodes.
American liberals, deprived of such tools, have had to settle for the next-best weapon; namely, the very good friend of just about every tyrant who’s ever lived, the tax collector. It is the easiest means by which to destroy America’s middle class. The less of their own money that Americans get to keep, the more dependent they become on the federal government to provide health, education and housing.
Forty-two years ago, Barry Goldwater was ridiculed for pointing out that Uncle Sam was our uncle, not our daddy. These days, it seems, we all need reminding that he’s supposed to be our uncle, not our Big Brother.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
Liberals have good intentions. The want to create a Socialist Utopia on earth.
Over 200 million people died in the 20th century for these Socialist Utopias.
Thank you for your article.
Comment by Michael A. Cholewka | March 28, 2006
I guess waiting several years for a hip replacement operation, say in Canada or Britain, is a lot better than never getting the treatment you need because you simply don't earn enough money. Like the 42 million people in this country who have no form of health insurance whatsoever because they simply cannot afford it.
Also, isn't funny, Burt can't understand liberals and yet I, a liberal, understand conservative thinking perfectly, it's so simple. Anyone who wants a glimpse into a world Burt obviously has trouble grasping could read George Lakoff's ground breaking book "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think". Go on all you Cons, I dare you.
Also, Burt saying that he does not understand the liberal mindset reminds me of that scene from Schindler's List when Schindler is bargaining with the camp commandant Amon Goeth to bring his Jewish workers with him when he relocates his factory outside of Poland. Goeth simply cannot get the angle, he thinks there must be something in it for Schindler but he cannot figure out what. Not in a million years would it occur to Goeth that Schindler simply wants to save the Jewish worker's lives. I think this is a perfect metaphor for the difference between conservative and liberal thinking. One is obsessed with self-interest above all other considerations, the other understands the value of helping people less fortunate than himself. Or perhaps the Schindler Jews should have been exposed to 'tough love' and found their own way out of the gas chambers.
Comment by Max Godwin | March 29, 2006
Libertarians understand "liberals" perfectly. "Liberals" are the ones that want to use the guns and thugs of the state to steal from the productive and redistribute to the non-productive. They're also the ones that are so obsessed with "equality" and "helping people," that they fail to recognize the state-sponsored tyranny they advocate. "Tough love" (i.e. VOLUNTARY compassion) is much to be preferred over the jack-booted Nazi variety…..
Comment by Mark Laythorpe | March 29, 2006
Nazis were right-wingers, I just thought I would clear that up. Facism is a right-wing philosophy, but I think you all actually know that.
Besides, were I live I see I hell of a lot of very unproductive rich people living off investments, and some very hard working lower income people who can't even afford health insurance. The productive ones, the ones who really work hard, seem to me to be the ones that are constantly getting screwed by conservatives in this country. Most conservatives I know can think of nothing else other than early retirement, they're generally the laziest bunch of anti-social whiners I know.
Comment by Max Godwin | March 31, 2006
Ahem…I live in Canada… and new private clinics are opening everyday in Canada because canadians are willing to pay…and of course, because our universal "free" health system does not work very well…
and the 42 million americans without health insurance figure is bogus, it has been debunked a thousand times, I don't know why some people are still using it…
Not only is the 42 million figure not true, but there is a law in the USA that says even people without insurance must be treated… US hospitals will even take care of undocumented illegal mexicans, they won't let them die in the streets,
even I - a Canadian - know that.
It is easy for liberals to understand conservatives, because it is easy for anyone to understand people that are logical and rational and reasonable, but it is hard to understand liberals that want to impeach a President because he is protecting them from another 9/11 ,
It is hard to understand people who want one thing one day and the opposite of that thing the next, ( one example: Murtha and democrats wanted the US out of Iraq and the next day Democrats voted against it…)
it is hard to understand what people like Kerry really stand for as he switched everytime a new poll came out
it is hard to understand people who do everything they do because of their patholigical hate of Bush,
and it is hard to understand how anyone can hate a man so much but want to protect suspect muslims so much.
It is hard to understand people who believe in ludicrous conspiracy theories even when so many facts, and figures and pictures, and witnesses and experts and more facts show clearly what the truth is
it is hard to understand people who when one of their conspiracy theory falls apart, create another more ludicrous conspiracy theory to blame the Bush administration.
It is hard to understand people who do everything to destroy their own country, people who will gladly tell the whole world how the USA is bad ( one example: Al Gore gave an appaling anti-american speach in the middle east a few weeks ago.)
It is hard to understand people who encourage - indirectly - terrorists to kill more americans
by telling them US troops are terrorizing Iraqi women and children.
It is hard to understand why an iraqi children's life is so precious in the liberal's eye, but the life of an unborn american is not worth a cup of coffee.
It is hard to understand emotional-irrational-hysterical people like McKinney who not only has hit a man paid to protect her - who risks his life protecting people like her, who could well die protecting her - but has accepted money from muslim groups connected to terror organizations….
It is hard to understand people who seem to love everyone
- illegal mexicans, suspect muslims, Palestinian suicide- bombers - more than they love their fellow americans.
And I could go on and on.
It is hard to understand people who don't make sense.
That is why it is hard for conservatives to understand liberals.
Comment by Friend of USA | April 7, 2006
Ahh… The big lie of the 20th century makes another appearence. Niationalsozialistisch or National Socialism or Nazi was and is an ideology of the left. Fascism was the Itilaina flavor of the same ideology was also from the left.
Both systems placed the State above the individual and created centrally controled economies. This would not be the halmark of a far-right government which would be one of minimal control to the point of anarchy where the individual is paramount.
Both Hitler and Mussolini where typical leftist of the early twentieth century and most of their agenda would fit nicely in with the MoveOn.org crowd. You can read "Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek which outlines Naziism was the culmination of the socialist movement in Germany.
The horrors of WWII forced leftist to create the big lie and slander their opponents with the comments that we constantly hear today. Bush is Hitler, conservatives are nazis, etc.. It is a sad attempt to hide what the ultimate result their statist policies would have.
Comment by Mathew Flannery | April 7, 2006
"Nazis were right-wingers, I just thought I would clear that up. Facism is a right-wing philosophy, but I think you all actually know that."
That's absolute fiction. I quote from the foundational platform of the Nazi party:
"7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals must be excluded from the Reich."
state promotion of industry, state taking responsibility for livelyhood of citizens, both leftist ideals.
"10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good."
State taking priority over individual, collectivism, both leftist tenants.
"11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST."
Don't tell me that's a right wing position.
"12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits."
ditto
"13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated."
Seems they weren't called the national SOCIALIST party for nothing…
"14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries."
again…socialist
"15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age."
state-run health care… straight from the mouths of the left.
"16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities."
government controlled class structure is a dream of the radical left. Government confiscation of property for the "greater good" could be straight out of kelo.
"17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land."
more left than kelo
"18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."
down right communist… "DEATH TO THE PROFITEERS". Oh and added points for the racial equality. (equal opportunity executions?)
"20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State."
state run education, state financed higher education. Though not as radical as what's currently done here in America.
"21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young."
Obligatory fitness education, state taking responsibility for peoples well-being… this would be equally at home in a liberal democrat's campaign speech.
"23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the German language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the German language); ( c ) non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements."
Government control of the press… probably both republicans and democrats wish they could pull this off… but it's certainly a liberal ideal.
"24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST"
religious liberty as long as we say it's ok… downright owellian (indeed it became very much so as eventually churches were told to preach "the gospel of Hitler" or be shut down), the key point here though is the emphasised ending (emphasis their own). The elevation of the collective, the state, over the individual. A fundamental aspect of leftist thinking.
25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.
Strong central state, unlimited authority (as opposed to rule by law). Prototypical leftist wishlist.
If you want to argue then look it up yourself. If you want to make more baseless assertions do so elsewhere.
-Jake
Comment by Jake | April 9, 2006