An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the “carbon
footprint” of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large... (UK Telegraph)
The above story is from the UK, they have government health care. Keep this in mind as we wait for the Supreme Court decision here in the United States on Barack Obama's health care bill. Pray the Supreme Court Justices do their jobs properly, leave out politics, and declare this boondoggle unconstitutional.



















Nobama and the libtards can shove their marxist hellthscare AND their carbon feet up their backsides.
Posted by: Skunkfeathers | April 06, 2012 at 07:28 PM
I wonder if the carbon footprint was just an excuse to get an aging patient off of their hands. Older patients have more medical problems and therefore cost more to treat. Her doctors have successfully removed an expensive patient from their list.
Posted by: pa | April 06, 2012 at 08:29 PM
In England you can buy drugs over the counter that require prescriptions in the US. This is to make it as easy as possible for people to treat themselves rather than seeing a doctor, and THAT is to keep the cost of medical care as low as possible because it's all paid for out of government revenues. Taxes. Socialized Medicine is very expensive. Once medical care is free, people go to the doctor over the slightest complaint, burying the system in hypochondria and making it very difficult for really sick people to get any care at all.
So the way it's worked out over there is, doctors do side jobs for cash. If you can afford it, you can get decent care but it comes out of your pocket. Gee, isn't that the way it always used to be, BEFORE socialized medicine?
Doctors are paid less in Socialized Medicine schemes, which caused a lot of them to emigrate to the US and other countries where they could earn more. This forced countries like England and Canada to increase the pay for doctors, which, once again, increased the cost of medical care and forced a lot of service cuts to compensate. Service cuts, translated, means that you wait months to see a doctor, you wait years to get the operation for the condition that you may die of in a few months, and so on. In other words, Socialized Medicine is not much better than no medicine at all. Looks great on the drawing board but falls apart in practice.
Posted by: Black Sheep | April 07, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Mr. AOW recently went on Medicare. Some of the specialists we now have to use are miles away. Miles!
Oftentimes, a patient's choice of doctor isn't really a patient's first choice -- particularly with managed care.
Posted by: Always On Watch | April 07, 2012 at 05:18 AM
PERSONAL experience of UK NHS.
(National health Service).
I can see my GP (doctor) the following day, if I want.
Operations do not routinely take years or months.(Know from family experience)
UK citizens have longer life expectancy than US citizens.
UK expenditure on healthcare for our healthier citizens is 9per cent of GDP v 15 percent ?of US GDP. (much higher anyway)
We don't have ANYONE who can't get healthcare.
Therefore we are healthier than you for less expenditure, for better coverage of population.
I hope, for my uncle (Dual nationality), and his family in CT, USA that Obamacare stays , and is extended when he is reelected. Five/Five Dem votes in that household.
My father died of aggressive throat cancer in 2006, but the care he did get was swift, comprehensive and state of the art, albeit too late,(but that was his fault for not seeking help sooner).
Posted by: Paul | April 07, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Paul, thanks for sharing that personal view. We hear so many articles in the UK papers and online papers about horrors that happen there with the NHS. The good experiences don't get published.
Posted by: Debbie | April 07, 2012 at 10:33 PM
And if you only read the UK Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph they are very 'selective' shall we say, in what they report.
But the other side of the coin is we hear many horrors of your private insurance based system, which again is no doubt slanted reporting.
However, our lower cost per head, higher life expectancy and universal coverage are facts not opinions/selective reporting, so make of that what you will.
Posted by: Paul | April 08, 2012 at 12:26 AM