<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d7626745258811529122\x26blogName\x3dOpineTree\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://opinetree.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6547004278245586123', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Canada: Get Cancer, Get Deported

I would love for Americans in favor of Canadian-style "universal" health care to explain the case of Juana Tejada in Canada. In an effort to save the government money, Canada has attempted to attract foreigners to fill positions as live-in caregivers. A few years after her arrival (legally, mind you), Tejada became sick with cancer and was apparently no longer valuable enough to the Canadian government to treat.

Above: Just remember, for those of you the government
deems worthy of treatment, it's free!

She is being deported, cancer cells and all, even though one of the terms of her service as a nanny was a "gateway to permanent residency." According to the Toronto Star, Tejada has been denied a chance to stay because "her illness puts a burden on the health-care system." Her immigration lawyer had a few choice words:

"Juana has respected and followed all of our laws to the letter. If not for her cancer, she would have already been a permanent resident and realized her dream...while it may be legal, I don't think it's right. It would be manifestly inhumane."

Yet in America, there are those of you who would attest that those who aren't in favor of nationalizing our health care industry simply "don't care" about people who lack health insurance -- that their position stems from a lack of "compassion" for those without coverage. Of course, compassionate liberals love to look at problems on the micro by bringing up any sob story they can muster.

"I once met a man from a small mining town, and he told me that because of my opponent's policies, this Thanksgiving he was forced to choose between feeding his family and treating his Lyme disease."

"In my travels across this great country, I met a woman from Clarksville, Virginia who told me that because of job losses in her town, she couldn't afford groceries and was forced to eat her pet snake, followed by her own eyeballs."

Where is their compassion for people like Juana, who was simply brushed aside because the system (ahem, government) couldn't be "burdened?" This is yet another illustration of how conservatives think liberals are foolish (but still well-meaning), while liberals think conservatives are wickedly evil mustache-twirling villians, content with the fact that "47 million Americans are without health insurance," just so long as their shares of Exxon-Mobile are doing fine.

Michael Millenson, a columnist for the Washington Post, is one of those liberals. A proponent of "universal health care," he writes:

"Despite much media hand-wringing on the subject, most of us give about as much thought to those who lack health coverage as we do to soybean subsidies.The major obstacle to change? Those of us with insurance simply don't care very much about those without it."

To Michael, I submit a passage from Frederic Bastiat's The Law:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Conservatives do care about the sick, which is why they don't want to turn their care over to the same government who spent 42 million dollars not on stimulus checks, but rather on letters informing taxpayers that "the check is in the mail."


You can post a response or digg this post by using the links below.
Comment | Digg | Go to end
hits counter