Occasionally stories from our more civilized cousins (you know, the ones with government run health care) pop up, and they always make for an interesting read.
A few months ago it was the 10 month waiting list for a maternity ward, and now this gem from across the pond:
Infertile women have been told they can only have IVF treatment if they are aged between 39 and a half and 40.
That’s right ladies… you’re eligible for a whopping six months. So keep your fingers crossed. That, or move to another country where they don’t have universal health care yet.
Subscribe / RSS
They are lucky IVF is covered at all. Assisted reproductive techniques are a set of procedures that should not be covered by either private or public healthcare, as they are elective procedures. It is not medically necessary for you to have children, so do it on your own dime.
Jeff: this is not an example of rationing healthcare, it is an example of eliminating waste from the system.
"eliminating waste from the system" sounds like an "everybody poops" reference to me.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point. Perhaps it wasn't the most relevant example.
We can instead focus on the recent case of a premature baby who couldn't get space in a hospital in Canada, so they came down to the US to take advantage of our evil system down here. (a hilarious but NSFW take on that story here…
For a balanced comparison of the British ans US health care systems, read this about an American woman who had a stroke while on vacation.
Personally, I like the part where the evil capitalist doctor correctly diagnosed her over the phone when the team at the British hospital could not, but that's just me.
"balanced comparison" I do hope that you were being ironic. An opinion piece, written by David Asman, and published in both the WSJ and The American Spectator? At least have the intellectual honesty to admit your source has a bias.
I don't feel the piece in question was biased. In fact, I think he went out of his way to provide a balanced look.
A piece can be critical without being biased, and I think this one was.
So you feel and think this was an unbiased commentary. OK, then I withdraw my accusation of intellectual dishonesty. All that leaves to question are your critical reading skills.
Please back up your assertion of bias in the article with a specific example.
I read it again after your comment and still think it provides a balanced look.
Again, something can be critical without being biased.