Free to Roam

Equations
A renowned Liberal blogger ceaselessly defends Obamacare by equating it to Romneycare in Massachusetts and to a conservative Heritage Foundation proposal involving the individual mandate. Allow RedStateVT to debunk these comparisons once and for all. 

Romneycare was a bipartisan solution enacted in a Liberal state. Of course Obamacare was passed without a single vote of support from Republicans and is a national plan. Interestingly, after Romneycare no other state chose to pass similar legislation. 

The Heritage proposal was never endorsed by the Republican party. Pinning it on Republicans would be akin to Democrats owning every kooky idea that comes from the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network. (Note to Dems: You do not want to go there.)

Democrats insist on ideological purity among Republicans, but are quick to forget that Mormon Harry Reid is pro-life. (For those who do not remember Harry Reid is the Democrat head of the U.S. Senate). All of which reminds us of something that the aforementioned Rev. Al once said about Mormons:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." 

Oh well.


Uncommon
Even as Americans struggle with the changes required by health care reform, an international survey released last week by the Commonwealth Fund, a research organization, shows why change is so necessary.

The report found that by virtually all measures of cost, access to care and ease of dealing with insurance problems, Americans fared poorly compared with people in other advanced countries. The survey covered 20,000 adults in the United States and 10 other industrial nations — Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain, all of which put in place universal or near-universal health coverage decades ago. (New York Times editorial, 11/17/2013)

This was inevitable. In the midst of an Obamacare meltdown we get a report telling us how terrible health care is in the U.S., how much better it is elsewhere and how the president's plan will raise our care to the level of (pick it) say, New Zealand. Of course the inquisitive minds on the New York Times editorial board fall for it hook, line and sinker. These reports are written by people with anti-U.S. biases and are flawed to the point of laughability. You have seen them before. "Infant Mortality in the U.S. Lags Botswana." And then you find out that Botswana does not report infant deaths in the first three weeks. 

People tend to vote with their feet and the wealthy Canadians hoofing it across the border for U.S. health care reveals plenty. When was the last time you heard about a Saudi billionaire jetting to Norway for cancer treatment?