Morris claims health care reform "inevitably" will lead to "denying health care to the eldery"
July 22, 2009 8:35 am ET
From the July 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:


The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights|
|
||
![]() |
||
And did I mention he's black...?
Gee, too bad nobody can think of a way to solve that problem...
Interesting. So, this conservative 'expert' thinks rationing means denying care to the elderly? During WW II, the entire country was on a rationing system. The elderly population was not targeted, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest it will happen with health care, either. The same specious argument about 'who are you gonna turn down, the 40 year old or the 80 year old?' would have been made about the food that was rationed just like it is being made about the health care that will supposedly be rationed.
You cannot cover 50 million new people without any new doctors, duh.
Okay, I've heard conservatives argue that the 50 million uninsured -are- covered, by emergency room service. Now, here comes Dick Morris saying, no, actually, we haven't been covering them? And the burden of suddenly beginning to cover them will mean instant rationing for all?
I have a suggestion: Should rationing health care become necessary, let's put the wealthy (anyone making over $500,000 per year) at the back of the line. The reason being they can always be treated out of their own pocket in another country.
I seem to remember that being the conservative point in denying care to say, illegal immigrants who didn't have insurance. Why is it different now?
You also don't get well care, or health care check ups in the ER room. Can you imagine a woman going into the ER to ask for her yearly pap smear, or to get checked out OB-GYN style?
ERs are for, EMERGENCIES, and hence the name.
But let me address Dick's claim that there's an 8 week waiting period in Canada for cancer radiation therapy. What kind of cancer is he talking about? Is he suggesting that people wait 8 weeks for treatment of a fast moving fatal cancer? Not very likely. What he won't tell you is that some cancers are slow moving and do not require immediate attention. In fact, with some cancers, the chances are you'll die of old age long before the cancer becomes a problem.
I hope most Americans--insured and uninsured--understand what's going on here. We're being fed a load of bull by wealthy bobbleheads who could care less about real people with real medical needs. They, and the insurance company reps they pal around with, only care about fighting the 2008 election over and over. If you face financial ruin or die because health care is so expensive doesn't matter to them.
As for the politicians of any party standing in the way of reform, I can think of nothing more fitting than denying them government health care by turfing them out of office the next time they're up for election.
My girlfriend was diagnosed with throat cancer 3 years ago. The time from diagnosis to treatment was 10 weeks.
The time spent in between was delays from the insurance company waiting for approvals on referals from her GP, to an ENT, Radiologists, Oncologist... plus further delays to wait for approvals on PET scans and MRIs.
So again to say that the Canadian health system has an 8 week waiting period for cancer treatment as a scare tactic is lunacy... what is our wait period today with our existing Insurance system. I know in this one case it was 10 weeks.
His autobiography?