A little on the long side, but a very thought provoking video:
While on the topic of socialized medicare, do read this article about a young man who died in a UK socialized medicare hospital – of THIRST!
The coroner at the inquest into the death of Kane Gorny, a patient who died of thirst in while hospital, has recorded a narrative verdict of dehydration by neglect. His parents say they are “devastated by the number of missed opportunities.”
He could not get up to get a drink himself.
So, he died.
Of thirst.
In a hospital.
Caused by neglect…
Because if you are not the one paying the bill, you are not the customer and it is not you whose needs will be of primary consideration.
Welcome to socialized medicine!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
July 13, 2012 at 15:16
I’m in a very small minority of people who believe that Obamacare is poor policy, though it IS constitutional. Fines by failure to pay into mandated health insurance are a tax, and the constitution gives government the unlimited power to tax as much as it wants for whatever reason. The constitution did not specifically describe or set limits on government’s ability to tax and spend. Even though the founding fathers themselves held beliefs against universal health care, they did not explicitly describe it.
Anything non-explicit or ambiguous in any legal document is moot.
In order to strike down Obamacare, we need to
1. Make amendments to the constitution to specify what government can and cannot mandate us to do
2. Repeal the act through Congress
But I don’t believe it is the Supreme Court’s power to prevent the enforcement of policy just because it is bad.
July 13, 2012 at 15:55
That is certainly tragic. As are teh far, far, far, far, far more numerous deaths that result from people’s lack of health care due to not being ableto pay. But as an ideological zealot, you don’t care about those people.
July 14, 2012 at 00:31
You don’t have the factual grounds to prove the first statement nor do you have the moral grounds to prove the second one.
Xanthippa says:
Thank you, Derek, for riding to my defense.
However, you must understand that this person – if it is who my snooping tool suggests it is – is not interested in a reasoned discussion about the merits of whatever it is I am posting about.
If this is who I think it is, it is a troll whom I have inherited from an exceptionally talented teen blogger who is currently taking some time off in order to go to school. (Let me take this opportunity to make a prediction: this teen blogger will, one day, be either a major Canadian political leader (top 5) or one of Canada’s leading journalists (again, top 5): it depends on the choices he makes in the next 3-4 years.
Which is OK. (About the troll, that is.)
Being trolled validates my existence as a ‘controversial’ commentator and, regardless of the nature of the trolling, it makes me happy to know I annoy someone enough to troll me!!!
I know, it does not take much to amuse me…sad, but true!
July 14, 2012 at 02:46
Yeah. I wasn’t planning on having a detailed exchange with him. I just wanted to post that.
When it comes to debating politics, it’s not always easy to tell an ignorant person who is serious from a smart person who is trolling. LOL