I do not call myself a republican or a democrat nor a conservative or a liberal. I think that anyone that specifically has to fall into one and only one category is doing it more for the feeling of a community then for actual opinion. However I do lean more towards conservative objectives on social issues (Its not easy being a new yorker). Here are my realistic views of political hypocrites and their agendas.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

LIFE - only for the wealthy.

Below is a very disturbing article published by the LA times

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gF8PAZM4mMYZ5PyFkCWxDcNXOspQD910HF7O0

Between 2000-2004 Four Japanese mobsters got liver transplants at UCLA Medical Center.

These people are:
-non US citizens
-murderers

Fox news was discussing this story and said something to the effect of that it is legal for upto 5% of non residents to receive transplants.

Hundreds of law abiding people - parents, children, siblings DIED in LA during that time period because they could not afford to donate money to UCLA to get a liver transplant.

I was discussing universal healthcare with a friend yesterday who is totally against it (I have mixed views). Her argument was basically all financial (which makes sense), however is this really better? Is the healthcare of capitalism really better?

5 comments:

mlevin said...

First - livers grow. So, one does not need a whole liver to be transplanted, just a piece of it. (unlike kidneys). One donated liver can be received by many people in need of liver transplant. Also, a bit dangerous, but doctors can cut a piece of liver from a healthy person and transplant it into another.

Second - Just any liver cannot be transplanted into a person. There has to be a match. A very close match. Else there will be a rejection and a patient will die. So, all those people on the waiting list are not waiting for just any liver; they are waiting for an exact match. When there is a match they are called into the hospital to get a transplant. If one of these people happens to be Japanese, then so be it. I really don't see a problem.

Anonymous said...

I don't see what this has to do with "universal healthcare" versus "healthcare of capitalism". The two aren't mutually exclusive, and besides UCLA is a public institution. If there is favoritism, it's as likely to happen under government funded universal healthcare as it is under the public/private system we have now.

Ichabod Chrain

frumpunk said...

UHC seems to work fine for most European countries. American healthcare is fine as long as you have money or good benefits from the job.

mlevin said...

Frumpunk - uhc in European countries is not working just fine. There are many problems with rationing and long waits (months not hours) for doctor appointments. There are stories of preventable deaths.

I prefer American system, yes it's not perfect, but it's not costing me half of my income either.

realistic viewer said...

Maybe I should revise what I said as there is a big difference between UHC and healthcare to all united states citizens. Canada and other countries provide health care to all their legals and illegals which is partially the cause of their horrific long waits for doctors. In no shape way or form do I believe healthcare should be provided illegal immigrants. There your go - that should save some time and money.