No thanks...(on the Flu Shot)

ATLANTA (AP) — A government panel is now recommending that virtually all Americans get a flu shot each year, starting this fall.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had gradually been expanding its recommendation for flu shots — 85% of Americans were already included.

On Wednesday, the panel voted to recommend a seasonal flu vaccination for everyone except babies younger than 6 months and those with egg allergies or other unusual conditions.

Now...at this point in time...the choice is yours as to whether you get a "flu shot." However, how do you think this story would read should the US Government take over the health care system?

You can bet your house that the flu shot would be required under the guise that it would lower costs for everyone in the long run. It would be a violation of the law NOT to get a flu shot.

I've never taken a presciption medication in my life. I've never been hospitalized. The last illness I experienced was a minor cold some 25 years ago. Yet, nationalized health care would likely require me, by law, to take this shot.

What's the big deal, you ask. How about the fact that natural immunity would be compromised? How about the fact that forcing a flu shot on someone isn't too far away from telling you what your diet should be, and enforcing such violations of liberty and freedom?

It begins with a whimper...and ends with no freakin' Ring Dings...

Obama waves his magic wand at health care...

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce today that the health care industry will try to cut $2 trillion in expenses over the next decade to slow the rising cost of medical care, two White House officials familiar with the plan said.

If successful, the cuts could help reduce costs for families and provide money for an expansion of health care coverage backed by Obama and some Democrats in Congress, said the officials, who briefed reporters but refused to be identified ahead of Obama's announcement.

Whoa...glad I'm not elderly. Think about this...how will the industry cut costs? Well, that's simple. They will cut treatment. No longer will you have covered procedures where the chance of success is below a certain percentage. Now, think about all those filler lifestyle articles that pop up telling you of a miracle recovery where the doctors invariably say... "I've never seen anything like this."

In short, those who can afford coverage, and make it a priority to secure health insurance will have to give up the quality of that care so those who don't have health insurance, or fail to make it a priority can have it paid for with your taxes...and your sacrifices (perhaps your life).

Right, Obama?

White House officials offered few specifics about how the cuts would be achieved or how the promise to slow the rate of cost increases would be enforced.

Thanks for the clarification...

Here's some more clarification:

Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The slippery slope is already coated in ice...

AND

Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Universal Health Care at its most pragmatic...

RUISLIP, England: When Bruce Hardy's kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.

"Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can," Joy Hardy said in the couple's modest home outside London.

If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Hardy would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost. A clinical trial showed that the pill, called Sutent, delays cancer progression for six months at an estimated treatment cost of $54,000.

The United Kingdom is already suffering the consequences of forced cuts on treatment...we're next.

The slippery slope is already coated in ice...

Cardiologists at Mass. General, who have prided themselves on placing stents in the sickest of the sick, said they have stopped performing such high-wire acts on some patients, particularly those with advanced cancer who could die within weeks. They acknowledged in a January letter to the state that they realized last year that they were doing angioplasty on "a relatively large number of patients with little hope of survival, and that we needed to modify our practices."

State health officials applaud this more conservative approach, saying that doing procedures on patients with scant hope of recovery wastes money and exposes them to unnecessary care and pain.

And there you have it..."Universal Healthcare" will dictate what is a reasonable treatment. If you are in need of a "hail Mary" toss...or a minor miracle (which happen in medicine every single day)...you are out of luck. Instead, you will be regulated to the "doomed" category...with the unsaid request that you just "hurry up and die already."

Do you really want "health officials" (read: government employees) defining the medical treatment you receive and in what capacity of agressiveness?

Universal National Healthcare now exists...

Cambridge Health Alliance and Boston Medical Center are the two largest safety-net hospitals in the state, serving large numbers of poor patients covered by MassHealth, and they will receive $120 million of the $160 million in stimulus money going to hospitals in the fiscal year beginning in July. Both had said they would eliminate jobs, close programs, and consolidate other services after state budget cuts were made last fall.

You know that train wreck of an experiment in universal health care initiated by the State of Massachusetts? Well, with the application of Federal Bail Out funds, the failed experiment is now a national experiment.