The title of this article, Living under PC health care is about what would happen when politicians and bureaucrats are making our health care decisions. Of course PC stands for politically correct, or maybe even politically controlled health care, the two are pretty much the same. What happens when politics and all the BS that it entails gets a hold of the medical industry. Every American needs to think about this and what it means to your health and your families health.

The example I can show of this is a recent article about the World Health Organization (WHO) run by the UN. The WHO is a typical socialist, bureaucratic organization. The article by the Associated Press was published by FoxNews, you can read the article here. A couple of key points in the article are:

1. Some of the UN programs actually hurt the health care in certain places.

2. In 1990 the WHO budget was $5.6 billion. In 2007 it was 21.8 billion. So in 17 years the WHO budget quadrupled. That is an average annual increase of $950 million dollars. Think of that in terms of Obama's trillion dollar plan. Image that budget quadrupling in 17 years. How could we afford it?

3. Funds are not sent to where they are needed. They are allocated based on politics and visibility. Globally AIDS causes 4% of deaths. But the WHO spends 23% of their budget combating it. There are other examples of countries that have serious health problems getting a smaller share of the health funds than countries that are not as bad off.

I suspect that you will see similar results under a government health care plan. After all bureaucrats, and especially socialist bureaucrats are the same all around the world. Image a health care system where heart disease and diabetes, the largest killers in this country are relegated to smaller funds, while politically popular diseases such as AIDS and breast cancer, or procedures such as sex changes or abortions will suddenly get a lions share of funds. Then image those politicians and bureaucrats struggling to pay for all of their programs and you can see how they would create rules that would deny life saving procedures to people who are about to retire; like they do in Europe. After all for a cold government paper pusher, it is a win win situation. They avoid paying for a procedure that may be expensive, and they avoid having to pay social security benefits because the person dies before they can retire.

On top of this, while Obama drags us into his utopian vision of national health care, the Europeans who he uses as a model are looking for ways to fix their broken systems by experimenting with, gasp, free market solutions. Below are some articles pointing out the problems with nationalized health care. Problems the willing accomplishes in the main stream media refuse to report on.

Examing Healthcare (Access My Library, accessmylibrary.com September 15, 2008)

Why isn't government health care the answer (David Gratzer, FreeMarket Cure, freemarketcure.com June 6, 2002]

Universal health care kills [Brian Schwartz, Patient Power, patientpowernow.org, May 25, 2008]

So we know from the experience of the Europeans and Canada that the liberal cure (national health care) can actually be worse than the disease (America's health care). Now why can't we come up with a better system that does not involve oppressive government regulations? We know what doesn't work and blindly doing the same thing in the hope of getting a different results in the definition of insanity.

- Thomas Paine 2

Technorati Tags: cost of health care, medical care, National Health Care, Obama health care plan, socialism, socialized medicine