UK Healthcare Changing Towards American Model; Obama Still Wants Unworkable UK Model:

Just as Mr Obama and his sniveling jackanapes want government-controlled healthcare for the entire nation -- completely eliminating private healthcare insurance and with vacuous gubmint bureaucrats and bean-counters determining your healthcare future -- the UK has now decided to move away from that model.

At this point you're likely saying: "But wait, BZ, that can't be true. You mean to say that the Europeans seem to be learning lessons from their various experiments with Socialism and are discovering that, in general, it busts budgets and cheapens lives?"

Yes, I say.

And further, you're thinking: "Yet, despite all that, our own federal politicians are providing clear indications that not only are they Tone Deaf but, further, they are entirely incapable of learning anything from history -- even recent history?"

Yes, I say.

Read this, if you would be so kind, about the UK's newest National Health Service move:

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

Read that again: "to shift control of England's $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level."

Continuing:

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

Read that again: "Liberating the NHS and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management."

And yet Mr Obama and a good portion of the House have made it clear they are for nothing more than government controlled and rationed health care.

The United Kingdom and Canada are finally beginning to realize that a government controlled healthcare system is unworkable, too costly and inefficient.

In America, ObamaKare is solely and purposely agenda driven. Saving lives, reducing costs? Not the end game in mind with DC. No. It is about power and control.

This recent course change by the UK proves, again, that the Obama regime in Washington is not only unsustainable (to utilize one of their own favorite buzzwords) but nonsensical.

The current federal administration couldn't care less about you, the American Taxpayer.

And if you older folk die and those in need don't acquire their meds or operations, well, that's just the cost of "wealth distribution" and bringing America down to its "proper" place in the world.

Sacrifices have to be made. Mr Obama couldn't care less if it's you.

BZ