Canada And Medicine

We must be more like Europe and Canada. For, as we all know, they know the best way to do most things in life. In fact, we should begin this necessary journey by adopting the superior healthcare system model that is currently working in Europe and Canada. It is called government-run healthcare, or universal healthcare. Senator Kerry (who served in Vietnam) made universal health care one of the promises in his campaign.

Unfortunately for Kerry (who served in Vietnam), the Supreme Court of Canada ended a law in Quebec that banned private health insurance for services covered under Medicare. Medicare, of course, is Canada’s government-run healthcare system.

This ruling means that Quebec residents can pay privately for their medical services instead of waiting in line for medical treatment. The court explained in its opinion that, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care…"

How did this major defeat for liberalism come about? Jacques Chaoulli, a Canadian doctor, challenged the constitutionality of the ban on private payment for medical treatment. In addition, the long lines and the inefficient bureaucracy that Canada has for a healthcare system was endangering people’s health because they could not get the treatment they needed in time. Some of the problems with the system also included a shortage of diagnostic equipment and restrictions to the latest therapies, including new medicines.

Why is this important to us here in America? Why should we be worried about the Canadian government-run healthcare system that deprives people of their medical treatment needs and endangers the lives of those who are forced to use the system? Because that is what Senator Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and Senator Hilary RODHAM Clinton want for us. In fact, that is what the Democratic Party wants for us. They want a primitive system that does not serve the needs of the consumers.

Why is it important that the government-run healthcare system in Canada could be (at least to a degree) a thing of the past? This Canadian fiasco is positive proof that the government should never run a healthcare system. It is inefficient, it is slow, it is primitive, it is inferior to the free market system, and it costs way too much. I do not see why any rational and enlightened person would want such a system.

By the way, I will let you in on a little secret. The reason Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and his fellow liberals want government run health care is because they want more control over your life. Pure and simple.

Canada, a grand socialists society, has quite a problem on its hands. One of the main pillars of socialism is collapsing at the seams, and the only way to fix it is (gasp) private health care. That is what America has right now! And though it is not perfect, at least we are not killing our patients in waiting rooms while the doctor fills out government forms.

Cut And Run To New York

President Bush assured Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari "…there are not going to be any timetables…" for withdrawal of American troops.

To most normal people, this makes perfect sense. As any reasonable person can tell you, setting a date for withdrawal is one of the most idiotic ideas anyone could come up with while we are at war. I prefer to use the WWJD method – What Would Jihadists Do?

Bush said setting a timetable for withdrawal would only prompt the insurgents to "…wait us out." This is what the WWJD method would predict. Why should these barbarians blow themselves up if they can just wait until, say, October of 2006, when the Americans depart Iraq? After the Americans are gone, they can just resume their attacks and destroy the country.
President Bush said "The enemy's goal is to drive us out of Iraq before the Iraqis have established a secure democratic government. They will not succeed." Now, I know this statement is quite confusing. Is Bush is referring to the Democrats, or is he referring to the terrorists. That brings up an interesting point.

The Democrats, and their hippie allies, are calling for us to surrender in defeat. They want us to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, and they want to us leave Iraq in disgrace like we did in Vietnam. That sounds an awful lot like what the terrorists want from us. I am quite sure that Osama (if he is not too busy with his kidney dialysis) would love to see us cut and run from Iraq. What a victory for the enemy.

Imagine what would happen if we cut and run like the Democrats want. Instead of the terrorists blowing up cars and buildings in Iraq, they would blow up cars and buildings in New York, Denver, and Seattle (to name a few cities).

For those of you who do not believe this would happen, just take a minute and think about it. Where else in on this good Earth are we fighting the terrorists? Afghanistan? Yes, but that place is pretty much lost to them. Where else after that? Not many (although there are a few spots) other places on this planet. Therefore, with Americans out of Iraq, the terrorists will have a few extra people to place around the world. Where would be a good place to strike next in their quest to hurt America? New York still has a few sky scrapers left.

So, we see we have two options. The first option is to retreat from Iraq. This will cause Iraq to fall, it will give the terrorists a great victory (they were able to defeat the only superpower in the world), and it will free up the terrorists to pursue new victims (such as Americans in our big cities). The other option is to stay in Iraq until we have either defeated the terrorists, or we have secured Iraq enough that it can deal with them itself. For Democrats, that is truly a very tough decision.

The Child?

Does anyone ever fear that we are missing opportunities to learn about other people and what they wish to accomplish in their lives? Does anyone here ever worry that people are being kept out of our sight, and that because of that, we will never really get to know them? Michael Duffy seems to think so.

Mr. Duffy seems to think that we are treating the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Prison in an un-American way. We should, instead, learn about these people. Here is what this kind hearted man said about the 20th hijacker, who was captured, in the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack that killed over 3,000 people:

As horrible as it would be to do what he did -- was prepared to do -- he's a weirdly innocent guy. He don't... He asked, for example, his captors whether the planets revolve around the sun. He wants to know about dinosaurs and how they died and what they were. He clearly has no knowledge of where Cuba is. He thinks it might be in Florida. He isn't exactly sure where Florida is, either. He has very -- almost no understanding of the United States, or the US government or the Constitution or the Bible or Christianity. He's - he's childlike, uh, in his -- ignorant in an oddly 18th Century way. So, you know, that emerges that -- that -- that that the hijackers -- 19 of whom have died and we'll never really get to know -- were children. Children who have been, you know, uh, convinced that this was a good way to spend their time, and not very, uhhh -- and he comes off that way.

(Sniff, sniff) It just touches my heart. My goodness, we will never know those other 19. Never! The things we could have learned, the dreams we could have shared. I could have learned so much from those 19. I could have learned about their goals in life as they prepared the knife to saw off my head in front of a video-camera. (Sniff, sniff) Just touching.

I think Mr. Duffy ties it up best in his own words:

I don't feel sorry for them. It's the implication here that we somehow, you know, feel sorry for them. I don't know where that comes from.

The reality is that this innocent, childlike, 20th terrorist would have just loved to run a Boeing 767 into Mr. Duffy’s house if it had been a target. If this innocent, childlike terrorist had had his way, Mr. Duffy would be dead right now. Pure and simple.

Of course, being the innocent, childlike man that this 20th murderer is, the press just can not seem to understand who the enemy is. You know, I believe that a lot of the terrorists who kill our brave soldiers in Iraq are childlike. They are so simple that they cannot see that killing themselves brings them nothing (except a rather terrible afterlife).

But, the liberal lie machine and the liberals themselves just love these terrorists. Why else would they be trying to shut down the military prisons? Why else would they want us to leave Iraq early so that these innocent, childlike barbarians can take over that country?
It is truly amazing to me that the liberals in this country have allied themselves with the barbarians in the Middle East. It is odd, because, if the terrorists had the chance, those very same innocent, childlike barbarians would stab the liberals who love them in the back (or worse). Interesting bedfellows.

Europe Voted

Europe is, without a doubt, the heaven on Earth for our elitist friends, the Democrats. Being of superior mind and judgment, the Left knows that we lowly Americans must strive to be like Europe. We must become unified, cultural, diversified, like the Europeans are. Thus, it has come as a most disturbing shock to the Left in this country that the mentally and morally superior Europeans have rejected, for the time being, one of the key elements of the Left’s ultimate goal of one world government.

This has come at a most disastrous time for our friends, the Left. They were hoping, after decades of talk and the cutting down of far too many trees to write the (at one point) 852 page Constitution of the European Union, that the Left in Europe would finally be able to do away with that foolish notion of national sovereignty.

But, alas, the Left, as usual, has lost this battle, for the time being. But do not panic you obscenely rich multi-millionaire liberals in the overwhelmingly liberal town of Aspen, Colorado. Europe will try this again soon.

Why, however, did the Europeans do such an action? In the great words of one of our most treasonous presidents, FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” FDR, in that statement, gave us the reason for Europe’s rejection of the constitution.

Fear is what characterizes Europe right now. There are two main cases of fear that brought down the constitution in both France and the Netherlands. In both cases though, it was the same basic fear.

The first case of fear came from the socialist side (the Left). The Constitution would have opened up the borders of France and the Netherlands (and all the other countries for that matter) to foreign competition. This evil idea, born in Britain and perfected in the Great Satan, would have ended the socialistic society in these Western European countries (from their point of view).

The second case of fear came from the conservative side (Note: it appears that the conservatives in Europe are not quite the same type of conservatives as we have here in America. They are more like Libertarians from what my research shows). The conservatives in Europe feared that the constitution would dissolve national sovereignty and replace (for instance) France with Europe. It would have created a large national sovereignty surrender not unlike (though without the military conquests part) of the Roman or Greek Empires.

This whole point brings up another issue that must be addressed. Are the elitist in Europe as out of touch in Europe as they are in America? It would appear so. Any time you see the Left and the Right (no matter what Western republic you are talking about) working together to oppose something, you know that whoever instigated the idea in the first place simply should remain at the university they teach at. The elitists in Europe, as in America, simply do not understand society. And when you have France defeating the elitist’s idea by a 55% majority, and the Netherlands defeating them by 63%, obviously someone up in the Ivy Tower is out of touch.

Like I said before, this just goes to show you that the elitist Left, no matter what country you are talking about, just cannot come up with ideas that will win in the public arena. Of course, if the Democrats were in France, they would just take the vote to the U.S. court system and have the courts overrule the vote because it does not comply with a law in Thailand. That, however, is another story for another day.