I’ll even entertain a friendly wager (let’s say a bottle of each of our favorite spirits) that in five years we’ll see more Republican acceptance of some type of national health care initiative if only to relieve businesses of their liability.

If you're right, I'll quit the GOP. What do I get if you're wrong?

The transplant did not work for very long and her father sought a second operation.

NHS doctors said, "No." The operation was very expensive and had almost no chance of succeeding. To spend the money on the transplant would result in the deprivation of medical care for hundreds of lesser, but still real, medical interventions for other patients within that local health care facilty's orbit.

Lots of hullabaloo in the media about the coldly clincal approach by the NHS, but also successful efforts to raise funds for the requested operation. Sufficient funds were raised, the operation was performed, and the girl, unfortunately, died within months.

A unitary health service, with finite funding, will necessarily lead to "rationing" of health care. Demand exceeds supply and choices have to be made. Those unhappy with the choice do have the right to seek outside-the-box funding, as was done in the earlier case. That's no guarantee of success, of course, but it is recourse.

As the sudden leap to privatized medical services in Canada--now that it's legal--shows, a unitary health service cannot be the only health service available in a democracy. But choices will still need to be made, if not by the government, then by those with the (in)ability to pay.

"Medical evidence speaks with one voice, that ventilation simply will not achieve the end for which no doubt the parents would wish," he said.

Her mother, Debbie, 24, from Portsmouth, still believes that if her daughter were ventilated she would recover.

Sounds to me like it is an overwhelming professional opinion against the hopes of a 24-year old mother. So what is a reasonable request to make of the health care provider? Obviously, parents would stop nothing short of complete and total organ replacements to save their child, but would it help? That's where we have to rely on the professional's expertise. There are education and licensing requirements to make sure we can trust their judgement.

On government health care, I don't think we should have it. The bureaucracy has managed to screw up and increase the costs of everything they've done. However, I don't think the care provider has any incentive to "save costs" by denying care to their patients.

Mc Geehee, when big business wants it, the GOP will go along. Mark my words, I’ll even entertain a friendly wager (let’s say a bottle of each of our favorite spirits) that in five years we’ll see more Republican acceptance of some type of national health care initiative if only to relieve businesses of their liability.

I'm with DC Loser on this one. It strikes me as inevitable. Businesses are already talking about this. They see it as a way to cut their costs.

Of course, it is short-sightedness, IMO. Such a program will have to paid for via higher taxes. Higher taxes means their customers will have less after-tax income to spend on their goods and services.

One would think, though, that the decision would be theirs. Unfortunately, when the state pays for health care, it gets to make these decisions.

Why think this at all? This is what typically happens. Look at the recent decision by Canada to effectively outlaw various fertility treatments. Samething as we have here. Letting the parents always make the decision will mean there is, effectively, no cap on spending even for hopeless cases.

I can see the GOP happily jumping on the bandwagon.

The same GOP that braved all kinds of vituperation to try to save Terri Schiavo? Put down the crack pipe, DC.

But, think, now; if the GOP saw a groundswell against such government involvement in health care which way do you think that would go?

QUESTION 2: Why don’t people see what can happen to control over their lives and the lives of their loved ones in government-run health care?
From the UK, the slippery-slope march continues (HT S.O.B. Alliance Member Large Bill):

Girl, 2, &#...

They've been installed in the position of making such choices by virtue of:

* government power
* government money being used
* a willingness on the part of the populace to accept whatever the government pukes up

And the cries of her parents, alas, are too little too late.

I'm sorry James, I have no kinder words for it.

What we're seeing here, is the single logical conclusion that can come of turning medical decision-making, And responsibility for all medical finances, over to the government.

And just think; the Democrats having their way, Hilary Care becoming the thing, we'll have this outrage here in the United States very shortly, now.