Obamacare: The President's Plans for National Health Care Would Be a Recipe for Disaster for America

How would you feel one day if you woke up and found that your tax money was used to pay for abortions for all Americans covered under national health insurance? Those who might be lucky enough to have still have private insurance through their employer might have a policy that would not have the same requirement, but if they would lose their job and be unemployed they would be required to get a recognized, qualifying government insurance program that would pay for abortions--regardless of personal conviction.

To me such possible requirements of an Obamacare National Health Care program are the main reason to oppose his plan for national heath insurance, but they are not the only reason. How would you like to have to wait an average of eighteen weeks for ordinary surgery, thirty-eight weeks for orthopedic surgery, and twenty-seven weeks for neurosurgery? If you needed a defibrillator to prevent a fatal heart attack, you might find your doctor would have to wait so long under socialized medicine that he or she might not even apply. Under national health care children might have to wait up to a year for a tonsillectomy. You think I'm just making facts up, or that such a thing could never happen in America? Don't bet on it. The waits I just mentioned are typical in Canada, which is often looked to as a role model for what America could expect under national health care, according to J.C. Willke, in his article, National Health Care Mandating Tax Funding for Abortions, in the printed August 2009 newsletter, Life Issues Connector.

According to Willke, under Canada's version of National Health Care, one can have to wait 72 days for a CT scan and more than 230 days for an MRI and might never be able to get a PET scan if he has cancer (because so few such tests are available)--that is unless he needs a CT or an MRI for a sick dog. In that case he could probably have the test done in a day.

According to Willke's article, candidate Barack Obama stated that "reproductive care (abortion) is at the center, the heart of the (national health) plan I propose." Although President Obama's Affordable Health Choices Act doesn't mention abortion, don't believe for a minute his has abandoned his goal. He just isn't trying to repeat Hillary Clinton's mistakes in pushing for socialized medicine when her husband was president and is trying to not be controversial. A Medical Advisory Council would make decisions under Obamacare, and who would appoint members of the council? Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services under our new President would make such appointments, and she is aggressively pro-abortion. Let us also not forget that is was President Obama who decided to use your taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in other countries--one of the most radical ideas ever proposed by any American President.

Also, don't be fooled by our President's claims that those who have current private plans can keep them. What if you lose your job? What if you move to another state? You will have to have a recognized qualifying plan, and the Medical Advisory Council will decide whether you do or not.

Some readers might be hesitant to take my claims at face value, because Dr. Willke is known to be strongly pro-life, and they are not. If you want to know what others say, an article in the advocates.org notes that the Canadian plan was originally proposed to provide free health care, free doctor's visits, free hospital ward care, free surgery, free dental care, and other free care. The Canadian system became universal and compulsory, because the government needed the money to fund it.

In Quebec, it costs citizens $1,200 per year each to have access to the "free" medical care. The average family pays $5,000 a year for health care under the "free" system--far more than an American family would pay for insurance--even the most comprehensive insurance.

Although doctors can in theory opt out of the program, less than one percent do, because of the lack of private insurance. Even the one private for-profit hospital in Quebec has to work within the government regulations.

Under the government system, general practitioners reduced how much time they spend with patients by 11 percent from 1972 to 1987. There are few hospital beds in urban areas. There have been work stoppages by nurses and other health practitioners six times in 20 years.

According to Willke, up to 1/3 of Canadians have said they would spend their personal money to come to America for care.

According to Headlines from Canada about their great Socialized Medicine, an article in http://gunslingersjournal.blogspot.com, a number of headlines were quoted about the failure of the Canadian national health care system, such as: surgery being postponed for 1,000 patients in Kelowna; the majority of dentists in Quebec quitting the public system; the fact that many in Ontario refer patients to the United States; wait times for surgery being at an all time high, cancer patients questioned their PET scans not being covered by insurance; a doctor who turned away a patient because he was 55; and Canada perhaps moving to private insurance.

Despite everything I have written, health care costs have skyrocketed, and too many people can't afford health insurance. Some kind of health care reform would seem to be a good idea--but not Obamacare. Whatever ideas there out there that might help, whether tax credits for health care or something else, President Obama's plan is a recipe for disaster for the United States. If you agree, why not consider writing to your Senator or Representative to express your feelings, before it's too late.

Citations: National Health Care Mandating Tax Funding for Abortions, by J.C. Willke, Liffe Issues Connector

Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience, by Pierre Lemieux, theadvocates.org
Headlines from Canada about their Great Socialized Medicine, no author listed, gunslingersjournalblogspot.com