Unfunny Leftist Comedian: Truth Doesn't Matter

Paul Ryan vs The Political Selfishness of the Left

There's a good reason why Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan is a rising star among conservative ranks, and a good reason why the left is so terrified of him.

Speaking at a Faith and Freedom Coalition convention in Washington, DC, Ryan spoke firmly in favour of generational justice -- the idea that it is not morally or ethically permissable for the people of today to live at the expense of further generations.

That includes those who would profit politically today at the general expense of future generations -- such as those Americans who staunchly refuse to reform medicare so that they may benefit politically from their grandstanding, even as the program is at increasing risk of bankruptcy.

Ryan's detractors have their counterparts in Canada, where they refuse to consider alternatives to the current structure of universal health care that may finally make the system fiscally sustainable.

They will never admit to it, but these are deeply selfish people; more concerned with preserving their own power and influence today by fear mongering, and less concerned with preserving these programs for future generations.

As Paul Ryan wages a battle to save the United States from fiscal collapse -- one President Barack Obama (somehow) unwittingly fights from the wrong side -- his true enemy is not the debt looming over the future of the United States.

His true enemy is the political selfishness of the left. With allies like the FFC, he'll hopefully be able to win that particular battle. His country desperately depends on it.

Rand Paul's Take on Health Care: Not Mitt Romnney's

Rand Paul criticizes Mitt Romney over health care

With promises to repeal Obamacare almost-certainly to be at the top of the Republican agenda in the 2012 Presidential election, it's only natural that Republicans will take aim at one another over the health care issue.

There are very few serious-thinking Americans who don't agree that American health care needs a very substantial fix. Consensus seems to remain that Obamacare is not the answer to the United States' health care woes. For Rand Paul, the answer isn't Mitt Romney's solution, either.

"Romneycare was such a bad model for 'Obamacare,'" Paul declared. "Once you allow that the state is going to mandate and decide what insurance has to sell, it really is such an anathema to capitalism and to freedom and individual liberty, that I don't know how a good solid Republican conservative could sign a piece of legislation like that."

"It's a horrific piece of legislation that presaged what we got from 'Obamacare,'" he concluded.

It's by no means a new issue for Romney. Romney signed the "Romneycare" bill -- passed by Democrats in the Massachusetts state congress -- in 2006.

For each of the following five years, Massachusetts has had the fastest-growing health care costs in the United States. In other words, they're out of control.

Even worse, although only 2.6% of Massachusett's citizens have been left uncovered under the Romney health care bill, a whopping 13% aren't receiving even basic health care. Massachusetts leads the United States in postponed procedures and unfilled prescriptions.

The co-payments on medical procedures under many health insurance policies in Massachusetts have proven financially crippling for many citizens.

In terms of treating Masschusetts as a policy laboratory for health care fixes, it seems clear that Romneycare has failed, and taht Obamacare will almost-certainly follow it into that morass.

Rand Paul -- whose father Ron has done everything but officially announce his candidacy for President -- intends to dog Romney with this record leading up to the start of 2012 primaries.

It doesn't answer the ever-important question of what Rand Paul himself -- or, more importantly, what his father -- would do to fix health care in the United States, but at least it paints a good picture of how not to fix it.

Dobbin, Mallick & Theilheimer: a Fear Mongering Trifecta

With the far-left decrying Prime Minister Stephen Harper's alleged fear mongering over the prospect of a coalition of losers, they have also taken this as an opportunity to... fear monger.

It's no great surprise. They've been doing it non-stop for nearly 20 years.

Some of the far-left's premier fear mongerers have dusted off their most dystopic nightmare to send one overhwelming message to Canadians: give Harper a majority, and Canada is over. Done for. History.

Everyone -- especially the authors of these diatribes -- know it isn't true. But these people being who they are, they're saying it anyway. Here's a brief round up.

First up, at Straight Goods Ish Theilheimer declares that, if given a majority, the first thing Harper would do is destroy public health care.

"Politicians and activists need to remind Canadians of how drastic the threat is. The record clearly shows that Stephen Harper loathes medicare," Theilheimer declares.

"Harper deserted Preston Manning and left politics in 1997 to work for the National Citizens Coalition, which was formed expressly to fight medicare, as chronicled by Murray Dobbin. In 1997, as NCC Vice-President, Harper said that Canada should scrap the Canada Health Act."

"Until 2005 Harper publicly professed to believe in two-tier care," Theilheimer continues. "When asked by the CBC about a parallel health care system, he said: 'Well I think it would be a good idea. We're alone among OECD countries in deciding that we'll have a two-tier system but our second tier will be outside the country where only the very rich and powerful can access it and [it] will be of absolutely no benefit to the Canadian health care system.'"

"In October 2002, Dobbin reminds us, Harper said, 'We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system.'"

Of course to people like Theilheimer, who denounce "US-style health care" to anyone who will listen, the idea of parallel health care systems seems like a scary idea... until you consider that the best health care systems in the world feature mixtures of public and private health care delivery.

Meanwhile, Canada's health care system -- operating within the framework defined in the Canada Health Act -- continues to perform dismally compared to other health care systems. Perhaps Harper was right in 1997; perhaps Canada needs a new health care framework in order to correct the ever-growing list of flaws in the current system.

Speaking of Murray Dobbin, he too took the interwebs for some good-old fashioned Dobbin-flavoured fear mongering:

"It's been a long five years for Stephen Harper, his gaggle of ex-Reformers and the gang of three from Harris-era Ontario -- Jim Flaherty, John Baird and Tony Clement. Long and infuriating, I am sure, because for all that time they had to pretend that they were a government. They had to masquerade as people who believed that government could be a force for good. They even "stimulated" the economy. They were a minority government and the big ticket items they really wanted to get their teeth into were out of reach.

They couldn't slash Medicare or gut the Canada Health Act. They couldn't cut transfers to the provinces, or further weaken EI. They left the public services unions with their rights intact. They had to leave education alone (more or less). And they didn't risk slashing the civil service they hate so much. Even the CBC has been spared (though they raised millions from their loyalists attacking it in fundraising letters).

The frustration level, especially for Harper, must have been almost unbearable. Remember, this is a man who got so frustrated being in Opposition as right-hand man to Preston Manning that he bolted from politics altogether. The place he chose to cleanse himself after all those years having to play the democrat was the National Citizens Coalition, by a big margin the most right-wing organization on the national scene. He said he was glad to be out of politics so he could say what he really thought.

Harper was hoping for revenge in the last election and blew it by attacking culture. He's eager for another try, making Jack Layton an offer he had to refuse. And if you want to see what real revenge looks like, give this crowd a majority and they will unleash the most destructive, nation-changing blitzkrieg in living memory. I can still remember the night that Brian Mulroney won the historic free trade election 1988. It was devastating. But Mulroney was a kindergarten teacher compared to Stephen Harper. Free trade started us down the road to Americanization. Harper will take us to the end of that road and beyond."

There's very little of substance in Dobbin's tirade. The sole issue of great concern Dobbin raises is the "committee handbook" the Conservatives were caught passing about earlier in their tenure. As disappointing as that affair was, it's but a mere patrol boat in Harper's political game of Battleship.

Dobbin spends the rest of his column chasing conspiratorial phantoms in the dark. Apparently, Dobbin believes in ghosts.

The rank anti-Americanism of Dobbin's column sets the table splendidly for Heather Mallick's contribution to the politics of fear, who is so brazen about her empty anti-Americanism that it's heralded in the title of her piece.

"We’re being conquered. If Stephen Harper wins a majority, the United States of Canada is what we’ll be. Maybe you’re fine with that. I am not," Mallick writes. "The Harperites’ attitude is Republican with a layer of Tea Party, a 'current of bitterness, an anger born of a sense of exclusion,' as Lawrence Martin wrote in his fine book Harperland, Conservatives 'viscerally hating their political opposition' in a way that was new and startling in Canada but old poisoned hat for the Americans. We will become more American in word and deed, in thought and feeling."

The only anti-American bogeymen Mallick seems to have missed are the Koch brothers and Sarah Palin (Mallick's self-humiliating vicious attack on Sarah Palin in 2008 managed to earn her a permanent place at the journalistic kids' table). Speaking of visceral hatred of political opposition, it was Mallick herself who openly admitted to experiencing a blubbering episode during the 2010 Olympics when Harper was simply shown on TV.

"The Harper Government does indeed love 'jets and jails,' as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been saying on the campaign trail," Mallick fumes. "Its plan for more jailing and less parole is at the core of the disastrous US prison explosion that even the Americans are horrified of by now (plus they can’t afford it)."

The Harper government may indeed love jets -- they are rather awesome -- but the salient fact is that no one loves jails. The difference between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff is that Harper knows that Canada needs both.

Speaking of Ignatieff, he did once declare that the United States was his country, yet Mallick has nothing at all to say about that. Anti-Americanism, it seems, applies only to Conservatives.

Mallick even blames Harper for what she considers to be increasing public acceptance of racism. Comically, she refers to the "too Asian?" issue of Macleans magazine, but leaves out a central fact: that the issue was widely denounced by critics.

Facts like that clearly didn't matter to Mallick. They've been sacrificed at the altar of fear, Mallick's last resort to try to prevent a Stephen Harper majority government.

Fear served the Canadian far-left well for 13 years. Yet Heather Mallick Murray Dobbin and Ish Theilheimer have yet to realize that Canadians woke up from that coma in 2006 when they elected enough Conservative MPs to make Harper Prime Minister.

The bid to resurrect that fear in the minds of Canadians is sad and pathetic. Thankfully, it won't get them anywhere.

Why Jack Layton Must Survive

Layton's fate will become rhetorical signal for health care

Canadian politics was shaken recently by the news that Jack Layton has been struck with prostrate cancer.

Speaking testaments to the strength and resolve of his character, he has announced his intention to remain on as the leader of the NDP even while receiving treatment for the illness. He has, however, admitted that the illness will slow him down -- at least temporarily.

His father successfully fought the same disease, and doctors report that it has been diagnosed with enough time to (hopefully) successfully treat it.

But even as Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams venturing south of the border for a heart procedure, Layton has reportedly opted to remain in Canada to receive treatment for his ailment.

And even beyond the basic human reason why Layton must survive -- that he is a human being who, despite any disagreement regarding politics, is owed the same consideration as any other morally worthy human being -- this makes Layton's survival crucial.

As the health care debate continues to rage in the United States, events like Williams' plans to be treated in the United States have been dropped into the rhetorical arsenal of those opposing universal health care. The argument is that if Canadian health care can't provide treatment for the head of one of the country's governments, then it isn't a model that the United States should emulate.

This has been troubling enough for supporters of Canada's health care system -- even among many of those who urge the need for some necessary reforms -- if Layton were to die of prostate cancer while in the care of the Canadian public health care system, it would be that much worse.

Fairly or unfairly, Layton's fate will be used to rhetorically judge the Canadian health care system. A successful recovery from what seems to be a comparably routine illness will serve as vindication for Canadian health care. His passing, in turn, would be used to condemn it.

For Jack Layton -- a lifetime advocate of Canada's health care system (some may even suggest that he has often been an apologist for its deficiencies) -- to be used to rhetorically undermine the credibility of Canada's public health care system would be a fate much worse than the death itself.

Whatever becomes of Layton, he deserves much, much better than that.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Glen Pearson - "Collective Mortality"

How to Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

One year ago, the Democrats appeared unbeatable. They had captured all three houses, had a slim super majority in the Senate, and were being buoyed by popular support. The Republican Party resembled a snake trying to eat itself and many liberal bloggers speculated that this was the final end of the GOP. Now with the senate election in Massachusetts, the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, an almost certain victory for the Republicans and polls indicated the Republicans poised for an amazing recovery, commentators are asking “How did this happen?” The answer is surprisingly simple– the Democrats are pussies.

It’s not like the Democrats haven’t had several opportunities to appease and even re-energize their base. For example, easy motions for them would have been to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. All it would take to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” would be an order from Obama, as he is the commander in chief, and it would have had most of the left wing celebrating in joy. And with the United States desperately in need of troops, it would have been hard for the Republicans to argue against the logic of “It doesn’t matter if you are straight, so long as you can shoot straight.”

I guess you could argue the Democrats’ have been using their political capital on Health Care Reform, where it sounds like the Democrats don’t have support. By the sounds of the rhetoric from Tea Bagger movement and the Republican Party, you’d think that reform wasn’t popular in the United States. However, even the controversial “Public Option” has had considerable support throughout the nation. It really shouldn’t be the Republicans hammering the Democrats on this issue. It should be the other way around.

SurveyUSA: 77% in favor. – June 2009
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...8-62b9d1ba8693

NYTimes/CBS: 65% in favor. – September 25, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...25pollgrx.html

WAPO/ABC: 57% in favor – October 20, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html

Reuters: 59.9% in favor.- December 3, 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

As for the Republicans, they really reorganized themselves into a cohesive force yet. There is still no clear leader of the Republican Party, they haven’t been proposing real alternatives to the Democrats Health Care Reform Bill, and the Tea Bag movement is an unorganized mass that just seems angry with the government. All they’ve done is walk lock and step too oppose the Democrats at every turn. This is a problem for the Democrats and their supporters because they can’t then explain how George W. Bush and the Republicans got to pass so much legislation.

My theory is that the Democrats are so worried about pissing other groups off, they are unwilling to push through things if it looks like there is strong opposition. Repeal “Don’t ask don’t tell?” what about all of those anti-gay lobbyists that would cry bloody murder about it? Lift the blockade on Cuba? There would be a riot in Florida about how the US has turned its back on the Cuban Exile community. NEWS FLASH DEMOCRATS – THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ANYWAYS, DON’T BOTHER TRYING TO PLEASE THEM.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don’t really seek to please the voters that didn’t vote for them, they actually do try and please their base. They give their voters the tax cuts, military increases, and security measures that they think their base wants. The Democrats seem to make a lot of promises, but only make half hearted attempts at delivering them. It isn’t a way to run a country, and isn’t a way to win future elections. The end result is going to be the Republicans getting their base out and voting, while the Democrats will have their base sitting at home being depressed about life.

If the Democrats want any chance in 2012, they have to stop using the Republicans like a crutch, go out there and kick ass. People voted them in for a reason, and it’s about time for them to deliver.

CUPE And the Truth -- Not a Good Combination

It's been difficult to escape a batch of recent ads released by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

In the ads an interviewer talks to people who are made out to be random passers-by in public places. If not for the atrocious acting on the part of the interviewees, it might even be believable.

The least believable of these ads is one in which a woman sings some undue praise for Canadian health care. This isn't to say that Canada's public health care system isn't due any praise, but rather that the ad in question intentionally skates over some serious deficiencies in Canada's public health care system.

In the ad, the woman recounts a story in which her daughter breaks her ankle while skating at a local ice rink. In her story, the rink staff call 911, promptly receive ambulance service, and her daughter is home in a couple of hours.

In no way is this an accurate portrayal of Canada's public health care system.

Anyone calling 911 for someone with a broken limb -- unless it was a serious compound fracture -- would simply be advised to help the victim to get to a hospital.

911 services wouldn't send an ambulance for such an injury. Even if they did, the individual in question would be considered an extremely low-priority patient. Any patients suffering from life-threatening conditions or injuries would be helped well in advance of this patient, inevitably resulting in a wait of several hours for that ambulance.

Moreover, ambulance services aren't covered by the Canada health act. Some provinces pay for ambulance services in cases where the patient's condition justifies the use of the service -- an ankle break wouldn't qualify.

When the patient finally arrived in the emergency room, she could wait more than seven hours for treatment.

Given the evident differences between the tale recounted in the CUPE ad and a little thing the rest of Canada likes to refer to as "reality", it would seem that some questions for CUPE are in order.

But as it turns out, CUPE doesn't accept any comments that question the messaging of their advertising.

Which is rather unfortunate. CUPE itself tends to obstruct any efforts to cut the costs of middle- and upper- management in Canada's public health care systems. The costs saved, if diverted to front-line service, in the form of additional doctors and nurses, would solve a great many problems.

But CUPE is far too interested in preserving redundant bureaucracy than improving Canadian health care -- or even allowing the truth about this to be told.

CUPE Ads a Good Deal (Of Goods)

Few Canadians watching any amount of TV right now can escape the Canadian Union of Public Employee's "Good Deal For Canadians" ads, in which an interviewer (read: actor) asks an assortment of people-on-the-street (read: worse actors) whether or not they think Canada's public services are a "good deal for Canadians".

Unsurprisingly, all of the actors in the ad agree that Canada's public services are a good deal for Canadians.

For the most part, they're right. But the CUPE ads themselves are selling Canadians a deal of goods. (This is a painfully mixed metaphor, but there's a point to be made.)



Many of the services the ads allude to: water treatment, sanitation, libraries and health care, are indeed necessary and valuable services for Canadians.

But not all of Canada's Public Employees provide valuable services for Canadians.

Many of the "services" offered by Canada's Public Employees are little more than the appendages of the embedded state, and that state's embedded ideology. "Services" like the funding of advocacy (read: activism) by groups funded by the Status of Women, for example, provided very little in terms of service to Canadians -- unless they shared the state's embedded ideology.

Predictably, CUPE itself opposed changing the Status of Women's mandate from "advocating equality" to providing actual services of value for Canadians.

"Services" like the Status of Women's advocacy certainly had very little value for Canadians who are indifferent to, or opposed to, what had become the state's embedded ideology. It was difficult to support services like that on a logical basis.

But where CUPE can't appeal to logic, it chooses to appeal to emotion and vanity. The first CUPE ad closes with a subtle bit of branding, when the "interviewee" declares Canadians who support Canada's public services to be "awesome".

If this had come up with a legitimate person-on-the-street interview, that would be one thing. But in an ad that is scripted -- and scripted badly -- it's simply contrived.



In the second ad, CUPE touts the economic value of Canada's public services. Indeed, some of them have a tremendous economic value. The economic value of health care, for example, is obvious. Employers in Canada are compelled to spend far less on health insurance for their employees than employers in the United States.

Libraries help our youth advance their education, and encourage literacy later in life -- both of which are of inestimable economic value.

But then, there is what Brian Lee Crowley deems to be "pseudo-work". In his book Fearful Symmetry, Crowley recounts how the baby boom compelled the government to set up entire social programs in order to absorb baby boomers entering the job market -- worried that the free market would be unable to accomodate them -- and how needs that would otherwise be satisfied by part-time work were expanded into full-time jobs, or how needs that required full-time work were expanded to require an extra multitude of full-time workers.

These public services -- found in crown corporations like CN, Via Rail and HydroQuebec -- aren't merely of limited economic value. They're actually of negative economic value. Not only do they suck the funds necessary to pay these employees out of the economy, but they also suck the skills of these employees out of the free market, where they could be applied much more efficiently.



In the third ad, the interviewer talks to a woman who simply has to be the worst actor in all of these ads, who gushes about Canada's health care.

Canadian public health care is indeed a good deal for Canadians. But not nearly as good as this woman insists as it is.

The woman recounts a (fictional) story about her daughter breaking her ankle at a local arena. The arena staff call 911 (unlikely for a broken ankle) who then sends an ambulance (also unlikely for a broken ankle).

But a visit to a Canadian emergency room would quickly dissuade anyone from believing this woman's story. Seven hour waits don't tend to inspire Canadians with absolute confidence in health care.

Of course, this is not the fault of the employees working in the emergency room. They make do with the resources they are given.

However, a great deal of the resources pumped into Canadian health care are sucked up by a surplus of middle management. Whenever a provincial government in Canada makes a move to divert more resources to front-line services by laying off middle managers, CUPE or one of its provincial equivalents fires up a panicked campaign accusing that government of "attacking health care".

Moreover, some of the limits the unions themselves place upon their employees prevent them from working extra hours in order to serve Canadians. The impact of this on Canadian health care becomes most pronounced when one looks at diagnostic medicine.

Ironically, diagnostic health care in Canada would be of better quality without the unions. But CUPE won't tell you that.



In the final ad, the interviewer talks to an unemployed worker, who appreciates the support unemployment insurance offers to struggling Canadians -- particularly at a time of global recession.

No argument is necessary to this particular ad. Unemployment insurance has a tremendous value to the Canadian economy, particularly local economies. It prevents workers -- who often possess extremely valuable skills -- from leaving local communities, provinces, or even the country to seek work elsewhere, by providing them with aid to get them through tough times.

But aside from this, the CUPE ads go to great lengths to conceal the fact that many of the "services" -- appendages of the embedded state's embedded ideology and pseudo-work -- the ad is intended to defend either provide little value to Canadians, or are actually encumbered by the union itself.

To envoke a far less tortured metaphor, the CUPE ads are trying to sell Canadians a bill of goods. Canadians should continue to buy the ones that offer value, and reject the ones that do not.

Karma is a bitch for Joe Lieberman

Remember back in the 2006 election, when Joe Liberman was running as an independent and he formed the Connecticut for Lieberman Party to get himself on the ballot? Welp, looks like he has a major rebellion in it's ranks.

This T.V. ad is now airing throughout Connecticut



It's like watching a modern interpretation of the story "The Gollem of Prague.

Thank You For Your Advice, Sarah...

...But Canadians will make our own decisions about health care

Ever since she was vaulted into the international spotlight during the 2008 Presidential Election, Sarah Palin has made a bad habit of coming out on the wrong end of interactions between herself and various comedic pranksters.

In November, 2008, Palin was pranked by a Montreal radio host.

Just over a year later, Palin has now been burned by Mary Wash, also known as This Hour Has 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty, who solicited some health care-related advice from Palin.

"We told her we're from Canada, and we're just looking for a few words of encouragement for the Canadian conservatives who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the socialized medicare that we have," Wash later recounted.

Palin's answer was frank.

"Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit," Palin replied during a later encounter (the first one was ended by the intervention of security).

"Basically, she said government should stop doing the work that private enterprise should do," Walsh added.

But even as Canadians' attitude toward private health care has apparently softened -- a recent survey indicated that 56% of Canadians support increasing the number of private health clinics in Canada, so long as they operate alongside -- and do not adversely affect -- public health care.

And while many Canadians may forget that Canadians were initially as resistent to the introduction of socialized health care as the United States has been -- then-Premier Woodrow Lloyd and then-former-Premier Tommy Douglas were burned in effigy during the health care debates in Saskatchewan -- Canadians have embraced public health care very deeply.

Many Canadians are in favour of reforms -- and sadly, Canada seems to be wasting this goden opportunity to discuss the options -- but abolishing public health care is on the agenda of very, very few, even among conservatives.

And while the very idea of Mary Walsh speaking on behalf of conservatives is perverse and laughable, that is, in its own sense, the purpose of comedy.

(It's also worth reminding people like Walsh that it was the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party, who last slashed billions of dollars from public healthcare.)

Outside of the world of comedy, Walsh would have no such place. Just like Sarah Palin has no place telling Canadians what we shoud do with our health care.




Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Intrepid - "Sarah Palin Tells 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty That 'Canada Needs to Dismantle Its Public Healthcare System'"

Dan Shields - "FunnierThanGerryDeeNotAsFunnyAsCancer"

Why Sarah Palin is Wrong About "Death Panels"

Sarah Palin peddles "death panels" absurdity at doctors' peril

Regardless of what many people -- liberals and conservatives alike -- seem to think, Sarah Palin is not nearly as intriguing an individual as many seem to think.

But one thing Palin certainly has a gift for is provoking controversy then not backing away -- which is precisely what she has done since stirring up a hornet's nest with her "death panels" remarks over the summer.

In a recent post on her Facebook profile, Palin has pushed that button once again.

"We had been told there were no 'death panels' in the bill either," Palin wrote. "But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care."

As was noted when Palin originally brought up the issue, what she's actually referring to are panels providing counselling on end of life issues.

Rarely has the reason precisely why Palin is so wrong on this issue been made as crystal clear as in a recent episode of House MD.

In the episode, Dr Greg House (Hugh Laurie) and Dr James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) travel to a medical conference where Wilson plans to recite a paper about the need for support for doctors who may need to consider helping a terminal patient end their own life.

As the episode points out, it's simply naive to believe that doctors who deal with the most agonizing and deadly illnesses don't practice euthanasia, and it may even simply be dogmatic to pretend that it isn't the humane thing to do.

On that note, it's actually extremely inhumane to leave doctors with nowhere to turn when forced to make the decision between helping a patient end their own life or forcing that patient to live out the last hours of their life in agony.

Whether Sarah Palin wants to call them "death panels" or not, the fact is that these boards are badly needed. Not merely in the United States, but everywhere in the world.

Healing a Sick Health Care System

One has to be very careful when approaching any film by Michael Moore.

As one approaches Sicko during a time of turmoil over American health care -- the debate is as fierce as it has ever been -- one has to be especially careful.

Sicko isn't specifically a film about health care. It's more a film about the American health insurance industry. In highlighting many horror stories about the actions of this industry, it paints a very unflattering picture.

Many Canadians have objected to the use of Canadian horror stories -- including that of Shona Holmes -- as part of the debate over health care reform. It's certainly little fun for Canadians to watch these stories paraded out in the debate in a foreign country.

Sadly, these horror stories very much are fair game. By the same token, however, so are the horror stories of the American private insurance system.

Even -- especially -- in a system in which private for-profit health insurance exists alongside government-paid insurance government regulation is necessary to ensure equity in dealings with these firms.

There's little question that many corporations employ bean-counters at various levels of their organization who are concerned with one thing and one thing alone: ensure that the company isn't spending more money than it needs to. At surface level this isn't that innoble a pursuit. However, when these individuals become determined to carry out their duties at the expense of the service being provided to their clients -- service their clients have paid for -- such a practice becomes morally bankrupt.

Interestingly, the French health care system minimizes the incentive for health insurance companies to deny care by paying 70% of the cost of health care, leaving the remaining 30% of the cost to be paid either by the patient or by their health insurance company.

Sicko also provides a very familiar reprise of the debate that raged when Hilary Clinton, during the administration of Bill Clinton, proposed a universal health care system in the United States.

It's very familiar because it's nearly identical to the debate that is currently raging right now, which could be seen as another message of Sicko: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Road to Universal Health Care Begins At the State

Speaking via ForaTV, TR Reid has a message for US President Barack Obama:

You're going about health care reform all wrong.

Reid uses the story of the evolution of Canadian health care as an example of how Obama should develop his own reforms.

As Reid notes, Canadian health care wasn't originally a child of the federal government -- it was a child of the Saskatchewan Provincial government of Tommy Douglas.

Beginning in Saskatchewan, Douglas' program was eventually implemented by the federal government.

Reid does make a few errors in his description of the evolution of Canadian health care. First off, doctors didn't flock from the other Provinces to Saskatchewan begause they "knew they'd get paid". Doctors flocked from other Provinces to Saskatchewan because doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike after Douglas introduced universal health care in that Province.

Nor did universal health care become implemented at the federal level because the other Provinces demanded it -- although the "demonstration effect" was almost certainly a factor. Rather, universal health care was implemented at the federal level because Lester Pearson needed Douglas' support to keep his minority government alive.

(Although Pearson dearly wanted a majority government, he never managed to secure one.)

Universal health care was implemented federally largely incrementally. Tommy Douglas can certainly take the lion's share of the credit, but policies instituted by Louis St Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney (among many, many others) contributed to the slow evolution of Canadian health care into what it is today.

It started, however, with the successful implementation of the model in a single province. This is a lesson that US President Barack Obama should take to heart.

Instead of ramming a single 1000-page bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate (a fool's errand in any case), Obama could instead make additional economic stimulus funds available to states that wish to implement their own form of health care reform.

As Reid notes, this could allow for something of a "policy laboratory" to emerge in various US States in order to find a package of reforms that works for the specific needs of the United States.

As TR Reid concludes, any governor that could plant that first seed of a successful health care reform program could some day be the United States' very own Tommy Douglas -- not only the father of universal health care, but perhaps even win a Greatest American poll someday.

Obama's Big Break (Down)

Obama casts finger of blame in wrong place

August 2009 will be remembered as a very bad month for the President of the United States.

With September 2009 not beginning on any better a note, US President Barack Obama lashed out against his adversaries yesterday, accusing them of using "scare tactics" to curtail his health care reform package.

"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics," Obama thundered. "Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."

Obama insisted he's as determined as ever to pass his reform bill.

"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," he insisted. "It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform."

But for Obama to blame the Republicans for his (to date) failure to pass his health care reform package is more than a little rich. As Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter has noted, it's Obama's own party that won't pass his bill.

"Their own Democrats don't like it or the bill would have been passed," McCotter said on an interview on ForaTV. "They can pass whatever they want. In the House majority rules. In the Senate they got 60. It's Democrats that find this health care bill to be too repugnant to vote for. All the yelling about 'going it alone', they've been doing that from the beginning. All the attacks on the Republicans all the smears on the tea party and the grassroots activists and the normal people who rise up against this bill. Sideshow."

"As a practical legislative matter if Democrats support the administration's plan it would have been done by now," he added. "If Democrats support the administration's plan it would get done in September."

"What we witnessing is an internal debate amongst the Democratic party and what they're finding is that if you start a bill from the left with [Henry] Waxman, [Geoge] Miller and [Nancy] Pelosi, three millionaires from California, you have trouble getting to the centre of American politics because your own people don't want to do it," he continued.

If Barack Obama wanted to take umbrage with political activists using fear tactics, he would need look no further than MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, Rachel Maddow or Dr Andy Opel.

But not only does Obama not want to cast a finger of blame at his own supporters, he won't cast that finger of blame at his own Congress members and Senators who won't pass his legislation.

Barack Obama may have looked good to his base, blasting off on his partisan opponents. But for Obama to refuse to take responsibility for his own party's disinclination to support his own legislation falls far, far short of statesmanlike.

Anatomy of a Town Hall Revisited

Anti-health care reform protesters are entitled to their say

In a competing op/ed column in the Tallahassee Democrat, Tallahassee arcitect Steve Tenance offers a distinctly different account of the health care forum at which Dr Andy Opel suggests he was intimidated.

Tenance suggests that the forum was Congresman Allen Boyd's method of ducking holding a town hall meeting:

"Rather than hold his own town hall meeting for constituents in Tallahassee as he did in many other areas of our district, Boyd allowed himself instead to be a 'panelist' along with two self-described local experts who support a single-payer, government-funded health care system. The 'lead sponsor' for the meeting was the clearly left-leaning, pro-government health care reform advocate Capital Area Community Action Agency, led by former Tallahassee mayor Dot Inman-Johnson. Inman-Johnson claimed that the event was intended to be 'educational, not political' and its purpose was to 'clear up some of the misinformation which only serves to confuse the public.' As if this weren't enough to clearly indicate the blatant bias of the meeting, there were 14 so-called 'co-hosts' as well, most of which, judging by their Web sites, were also pro-government health care proponents.

Does Inman-Johnson have a right to invite our congressman to meet with her special interest group to discuss health care reform? For sure, no less than any other group; however, this meeting should have been in addition to, not in lieu of Congressman's Boyd's own publicly held meeting. While Inman-Johnson made an attempt to appear fair, alternating questioners of opposing views, it was clear that the deck was stacked with invited special interest groups from only one side of the issue and hardly representing a cross-section of Allen Boyd's constituency.

The truth is that to 'sponsor' the event, Inman-Johnson's group had only to pay a fee of $25 per hour to City Hall, for a total cost of $75 for the three hours; and with 14 'co-host' groups, each was out only five bucks. What did all of these groups get in return, one might ask? The perk of 'sponsoring' and 'co-hosting' was that they did not have to wait in line with the rest of us common folk; they had advanced seating through a side door, while the rest of us waited in line for more than two hours. Pretty good return on their investment, I might say.

I arrived at City Hall at 4 pm and immediately took my place in line right outside the chamber doors, and by my count, I was in spot number 52. The City Commission chamber has 250 seats, but when we finally were let into the room, I had to scramble to find an empty seat. I realized then that the room had at least 150 people already seated, far above the 50 that Bill Cotterell reported the following day.

Judging by the applause during the event, it was clear that all of the people in the center of the room were the ones who were pre-seated. Had citizens holding the opposing view tried to pull off such a stunt, Inman-Johnson and her crowd would have been screaming foul and labeled us a mob that was trying to thwart the democratic process.

Why is it that people who support a proposed government takeover of our health care system are considered 'grassroots support' by the left, yet those who seek a different type of reform with less or no government intervention are called 'AstroTurf'? The real intent of this meeting was to influence opinion, not to provide an 'educational' forum for our congressman to meet with constituents for an open and honest discussion with the people he represents in the US Congress. I find the blatant double standards of the left to be frustrating, annoying and simply unacceptable, and I'm going to call it what it is every time I see it.

Congressman Boyd's office has confirmed that he will hold a real meeting with his constituents 'sometime in the fall,' and hold it in a suitable venue to accommodate as many as wish to attend. Let's hope it isn't too late for 'We the People' to participate in the process."

Tenance's account on the story is, oddly enough, just as telling as Dr Opel's, although not in a way that Dr Opel would prefer.

Tenance's tale is that of a congressman attempting to avoid discussing a contentious public issue with their constituents -- substituting (at least for the time being) a public meeting in which communication tends to flow one way for one in which two-way (or multi-directional) communication takes place.

Dr Opel's account of the protests at the forum is one thing. Dr Opel attempted to portray those protesting as violent brutes, and attempt to divert the topic of consideration to racism.

It may be considered disappointing that one of the most politically relevant issues to emerge out of the discussion of a vital public institution is, instead, the manner in which those supporting President Barack Obama's health care reform package are attempting to conclude the debate by marginalizing their opponents.

On one hand we have a Florida State associate professor attempting to demonize his adversaries as racist thugs. On the other hand is a congressman who seems to be favouring a manner of public discourse that favours participation by those he agrees with, and limits the opportunities of his opponents to participate.

One may not necessarily agree with Steve Tenance's views on health care. But one thing that is beyond question is that opponents of health care reform deserve to have their say.

They shouldn't be bullied out of the debate by university professors eager to demean them as racists, nor should they be shut out by a congressman who would rather hobnob with special interest groups that already agree with him.

Look Hard Enough For Something And You Will Find It

The quest to discredit conservative activism continues

In an op/ed column for the Tallahassee Democrat, Florida State University Associate Professor Dr Andy Opel offers an "anatatomy of a photograph" that he believes is quite damning of opponents of US President Barack Obama's health care reform package.

In the photo, pictured left, a man is shown speaking with Opel in what appears to be a quite angry tone. Opel treats it -- and his experiences at a Town Hall meeting on health care -- as evidence that those protesting Obama's health care reforms are using "intimidation and threats of violence" to advance their agenda.

This despite the fact that the man in the picture seems to be pointing at Opel with sheet of paper clutched between his middle and ring fingers.

Even through his own reporting, the story that Opel presents does not materialize. What materializes in its stead is a story about the desperation with which advocates of health care reform are attempting to marginalize and demonize their adversaries.

As with most such stories, it isn't a pretty picture. It begins with Opel going looking for a confrontation:

"On Tuesday, I went to Tallahassee City Hall to attend a forum on health care reform that featured Congressman Allen Boyd as a panelist. The hall was full when I arrived, but outside I found a large group of people participating in a rally sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and the James Madison Institute. Some were carrying signs ranging from a swastika with a red line through it to another that read, 'Government Healthcare makes me sick!'

As someone who supports health care reform and would like to see universal coverage in the US, I was curious to find out what was motivating the resistance to health care reform and why anyone would be so hostile to proposals that will provide health coverage to the 46 million people who currently lack access to medical care."

To most people, this would actually be perfectly evident: one way or the other, these people simply do not see this issue the same way Opel does. Opel, like many committed ideologues, doesn't seem to understand this, let alone does he understand how someone may see the issue differently.

But, as it stands, Opel doesn't really seem interested in it at all. He seems perfectly content to portray opponents of health care reform as base brutes.

"What I found, and what the photo I was pictured in on Wednesday's front page revealed, was that many people who are resisting the current government initiatives would rather use intimidation and threats of violence instead of rational debate to advance their agenda."

The picture does seem rather tense, but still a far cry short of impending violence.

It's also perfectly evident from Opel's body language in the picture that he doesn't feel the slightest bit intimidated by the man with whom he is arguing. If anything, his body language is every bit as confrontational.

But that, sadly, isn't Opel's only argument. Despite the folly of recent efforts to invoke racism as part of the health care debate, Opel conflates concerns about illegal immigrants and where they would get their health care into evidence of some kind of white supremacist agenda -- much like MSNBC concealing the race of a man with an assault rifle in order to suggest that he's white.

"Among the people to whom I did talk at length, a number of themes emerged.

One thing that quickly became clear was that this is not really a debate about health care. Within a matter of moments, multiple conversations turned to the issue of 'illegal immigration.' These individuals mistakenly believed that their tax money would be paying for the health care of 'illegal immigrants.' This was followed by criticisms of US immigration policy, border security and a slew of racist comments against non-English speakers and the poor."

Interestingly enough, the question of illegal immigrants and how they would access health care can't be as easily separated as Opel would like to believe.

After all, it isn't as if amnesty for illegal immigrants -- who, for the record, have broken the law by virtue of their method of entry into the United States -- is a cause that has never been championed by the Democratic party.

Concern over illegal immigration, and the massive security risk it poses to the United States not only in terms of terrorism, but also in terms of issues such as organized crime and drug smuggling, is a legitimate issue. Trying to delegitimize that concern is a service to no one.

Of Dr Opel's legitimate concerns is the misinformed nature of many health care reform opponents:

"I also discovered that there are parallel worlds when it comes to statistics about health care. When I asked individuals if they were content to let 46 million people go without health care, I was met with the repeated line, 'It's not 46 million.' I would then ask how many were uninsured, and the repeated answer was that most of the 46 million were 'illegal immigrants' and that the real number was fewer than 10 million and those people could pay for insurance but choose not to.

These opinions contradict data from the US Census Bureau, which documents 46 million uninsured American citizens in the US in 2007.

A similar disconnect occurred around my attempts to compare US health care spending and outcomes with other developed countries. According to the people I spoke with, health care systems in Canada, England, Germany and elsewhere are all on the verge of collapse and those countries are looking to replicate the current US model. These ideas challenge World Health Organization data that rank overall US health care as 37th in the world, 24th in life expectancy, all while we pay nearly twice as much in health care costs per person as any country in the world. Paying more for less is not an indication of a healthy marketplace, but these protestors were ready to defend the current system at any cost.

Finally, the number of senior citizens protesting 'government run health care' stood out with great irony. When I asked a man holding an 'Obama = Socialism' sign if he wanted to give up his Medicare, I was told that Medicare was underfunded."

Certainly a great many more Americans would share Opel's enthusiasm for health care reform if they were aware of the facts surrounding the state of health care in the United States. They may not necessarily be eager to embrace the health care models of Canada, Britain or Germany, but they would almost certainly be in favour of some kind of structural reform.

But the greatest irony of Opel's column is only about to emerge:

"These intellectual and ideological disconnects are a reminder of the power of niche media to create echo chambers that allow us to live in isolated worlds where our own views are rarely challenged and demagogues offer bumper-sticker slogans instead of policy solutions. Examples include Sarah Palin, who spread the 'death panel' lie; Fox News host Glenn Beck, who has called President Obama a racist and joked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; and Rush Limbaugh, with his ongoing accusations of Obama's policies paralleling those of the Nazis."

To be fair, the reporting of media outlets such as FOX News on a great many topics -- including health care reform -- has been of rather dubious merit.

But then again, so has the reporting of outlets such as MSNBC. For Opel to decry the "intellectual and ideological disconnects" of Palin, Beck and Limbaugh is one thing. What of the "intellectual and ideological disconnects" of Contessa Brewer, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann?

Not only is Opel content to ignore them -- conflating concerns over the costs of health care reforms, whether or not citizens will provide the benefits of such to non-citizens, and the scope of reform with racism -- Opel is more than content to embrace them on his own.

It seems that, as far as echo chambers go, Opel is more than content to be just another voice ringing through the chamber.

"When US Senator Chuck Grassley repeats Palin's lies and groups like Americans for Prosperity host two clips of Glenn Beck on the front page of their Web site, we can see the echo chamber at work, propagating myths as political reality and fanning the flames of fear and insecurity in a time of economic crisis and demographic change in the US."

We can also see the echo chamber at work when Opel joins the chorus of those trying to delegitimize those who dissent from their own views. And when people such as Brewer and Maddow make bold predictions that an assassination attempt is imminent, what are they playing to but the politics of fear?

It's one thing to decry the alleged fear mongering of one's opponents. It's another thing to do it while fear mongering on your own.

"As conservative politicians and media pundits exploit fear for political gain at the expense of any real health care solution, we all suffer from the economic drag of an inefficient health care system and the moral failing of a society unwilling to care for its most vulnerable."

One has to imagine that Andy Opel believes he's doing fellow advocates of health care reform quite the favour.

The truth is very different.

When Opel falls all over himself to deligimize his political opponents he reveals himself to be every bit as misguided, dishonest and unprincipled as his ideological adversaries. He shows that he is exploiting the same echo chamber, and he is doing so secure in the knowledge that those within that chamber will not seek any outside information or perspective.

There is a great deal of security to be found in such an echo chamber. For example, Contessa Brewer, Toure and Dylan Ratigan have yet to retract their report in which they edited footage in order to obscure the race of a gun-bearing individual at an Obama rally so they could suggest white racists were planning Obama's assassination. They don't actually need to. Because those viewing their show very likely may have never watched a story about the rally in question on a competing network. Although they know full well they've misrepresented the story in question, they need never admit it. That is the power of the echo chamber.

Just like MSNBC may even find some who are legitimately racist among those opposing Brack Obama's health care reform, Dr Andy Opel clearly went looking for a confrontation with ignorant opponents of health care reform. He evidently looked hard enough to find it. But that is no surprise.

When one looks hard enough for something they want to find, they may even convince themselves they've found it.

Death of a Dynasty Death of a Dream?

Will health care reform die with Ted Kennedy?

At the age of 77, Edward Kennedy passed away last night after a lengthy fight with brain cancer.

In the wake of his passing, many are insisting that his passing is the death of the Kennedy dynasty. As the longest-living of the Kennedy brothers -- John and Robert both met with unfortunately young demises -- Ted Kennedy's passing is at the very least the end of an era.

(Arnold Schwarzenegger, husband to Maria Schriver, continues to govern California. One may question whether or not the Kennedy dynasty is truly dead.)

But some fear that more than simply that era may end with Kennedy's passing. Some worry that Barack Obama's health care reform ambitions -- long championed by Kennedy -- may ultimately die with him.

The so-called public option the Democrats have been pushing as part of their reform package has, amidst vociferous public dissent and the Democrats' own political clumsiness, seemingly become a dead option, as the Democrats seem to have sounded a near-full retreat on the issue.

As Andrew Cohen notes, Ted Kennedy contacted Massachussets governor Deval Patrick via letter and asked him to appoint a replacement for Kennedy in the event of his seat becoming vacant -- as it has today.

Kennedy seems to have been very aware that his passing was quickly approaching. These past few weeks must have been very difficult for him, as he watched a combination of legitimate fiscal concern and sheer hysteria combine with his personal political quest to tear his country apart once again.

Now that Edward Kennedy has passed away, observers are now left to wonder precisely what fate awaits the Obama health care reform package. Will supporters be galvanized by Kennedy's passing and become more determined to make his legacy a reality? Or will they lose heart for another decade?

Only time -- and the resolve of Barack Obama -- will tell.

A Recipe For Unsustainable Health Care

Cameron's proposed NHS policy uncharacteristic and foolish

In the midst of a controversy surrounding a Tory MP's criticisms of the National Health Service, British Conservative party leader has managed to provoke a controversy within his own caucus.

In response to scathing criticisms stemming from Daniel Hannan's recent voicing of criticisms of the NHS on Fox News, Cameron has proposed to commit to annually increasing government spending on the NHS at a rate exceeding inflation.

Naturally, this has created a division within his party caucus. What he may not have expected is that his caucus would so firmly align against his proposal.

Only 29% of Cameron's caucus agreed with his plan. 62% of his MPs disagreed.

Furthermore, only 33% agreed that the current funding model for the NHS would be sustainable for another period of 60 years. 62% didn't.

The same poll of Cameron's MPs found that they wanted the introduction of a broader role for private health insurance.

Former Conservative Health Secretary Ann Widdecombe has called for wealthy Britons to use private health care in order to relieve undue strain on the public system -- something that would likely require a greater role for private health care.

"We urgently need the debate -- I think politicians of all parties have shied away from it for too long," she said. "We should look without prejudice at a range of options."

And while there's certainly nothing wrong with Widdecombe's call for a greater debate, one can certainly expect the Labour party -- which has been so utterly ham-fisted over Daniel Hannan's remarks -- to take full advantage of both her comments and the results of this particular poll.

Perhaps the greater problem for Cameron, however, is that his MPs are perfectly justified in opposing his proposal.

Allowing the funding of any government program -- even one as integral as health care -- to increase at a rate greater than inflation is a recipe for an absolute fiscal disaster.

If the funding for the National Health Service increased at a rate greater than inflation, it would be unsustainable well within the 60 year window the ComRes poll uses as its frame of reference.

Certainly, David Cameron cannot allow the Labour party to have a free hand in painting his party with the "secret agenda" tar brush that so successfully managed to mar his party's Canadian counterpart.

But Cameron needs to focus on responsible policies, and make sure that any policy he proposes can be sustainable. He should be more than happy to leave the politics of irresponsibility to his opponents.

Let it Rain on Health Care Fraud

As the debate over health care in the United States (and in other countries) continues, it often helps to remember that it is hardly a new debate.

Francis Ford Coppola's The Rainmaker was released in 1997. It was a film adaptation of a 1995 book by John Grisham -- which was probably one of fewer than five books that has ever drawn tears from this author.

In the film, Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon) is a graduate just out of law school when he encounters the legal profession in all of its ugliness. In a market overloaded with lawyers, Baylor ends up in the cutthroat employ of "Bruiser" Stone (Mickey Rourke), a strong-arm lawyer with a taste for chasing ambulances and expertise in "stolen evidence".

When Stone is forced to leave the country before he has to face down a grand jury over some seeming connections to organized crime, Baylor is forced to take on the case of Donny Ray Black (Johnny Whitworth), a leukemia patient who is being denied treatment by a health insurance company that sold his mother, Dot (Mary Kay Place) a cheap insurance policy.

Attempting to weasle their way out of paying for a live-saving bone marrow transplant, the company is prepared to simply let Donnie die while they attempt to dismiss his case with the cooperation of a dishonest circuit judge. But when the presiding judge passes away from a heart attack, he's replaced by Justice Tyrone Kipler (Danny Glover), a former activist lawyer.

The company and their lawyer, Leo Drummond (John Voight), are in for some bad news: they're going to trial.

Despite the inexperience of Baylor, it's going to prove costly for them.

In the course of the trial, the testimony of Jackie Lemancyzk (Virgina Madsen) makes it evident that denying all claims in the hopes that the policy holder won't pursue legal action was integral to Great Benefit's scheme in which the cheap health insurance policies were sold door-to-door.

To make the scheme even more infuriating, the company attempted to dismiss bone marrow transplants as "experimental procedures", even as they were planning to invest in bone marrow clinics because they had become a standard procedure for treating leukemia.

In the film, Great Benefit has activated more than 90,000 of the policies sold to the Blacks, yet paid out on barely more than 1,000 of 11,000 claims.

Denying people the benefits they have paid good money -- maybe not a lot of money, but good money -- for has proven to be very profitable for the company.

The scheme presented in The Rainmaker could be viewed as the oft-hidden underside of health insurance fraud -- insurance fraud by insurance companies, who double-deal behind the scenes in order to profit from medical procedures they don't want to pay for.

The arguments made by Drummond in the case -- that forcing health insurance companies to actually pay out the benefits they collect for would cause insurance rates to become unaffordable, and eventually put the health insurance industry in government control.

The similarity to arguments being used against President Barack Obama's health care reform plan should probably be seen as less than coincidental.

In the end, the consequences for the company prove to be catastrophic for them. For their victims, it has -- and will -- prove to be much, much worse.

In the film, Drummond and numerous Great Benefit executives claim they were merely denying claims so they would have time to investigate possible fraudulent claims -- which is ironic when one considers that their denial of benefits are, themselves, fraudulent.

The kinds of schemes portrayed in The Rainmaker represent nothing more than white collar crime under a dishonest guise of legality. These cases shouldn't merely be a matter for civil courts -- they should be a matter for criminal law. Insurance companies using any such scheme should be prosecuted to the fullest extent to the law, up to and including for manslaughter if their victims -- patients being denied benefits they've paid for -- die.

David Cameron's Health Care Dilemma

Disrupt party unity or give Gordon Brown a massive gift?

As the health care debate continues to rage in the United States and (sadly to a much lesser extent) in Canada, British Conservative party leader David Cameron is facing a health care debate of his very own.

He's essentially been presented with two options -- severely punish a group of Tory MPs, led by Daniel Hannan, who have endorsed the views of American opponents of health care reform who have also targeted Britain's National Health Service as an example of why Americans do not want to institute universal health care.

"I wouldn’t wish it on anybody," Hannan told FOX News. "We have a system where the most salient facts of it you get huge waiting lists, you have bad survival rates and you would much rather fall ill in the US."

The Labour party wasted no time whatsoever in jumping all over Hannan's remarks, treating them, in a "secret agenda"-esque manner, as the secret "true policy" of the British Conservative party on health care.

"This lays bare the Tories' deep ambivalence towards the NHS," said British Health Secretary Andy Burnham. "Their election strategy is not to talk about it. Cameron knows there is deep hostility towards it within his ranks."

"Hannan is not the only one. Many senior Tory MPs privately agree with him," Burham added. "Mr Cameron looks rattled today. Dan Hannan's attack lays bare the real face of the face Tory Party."

"Despite Cameron's frantic backtracking, it's clear he and Hannan are much closer than he wants people to think," he concluded.

Which is actually rather different from Cameron actually had to say about the NHS.

"One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill - no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got - you know that the NHS will look after you," Cameron said.

It should be no surprise that Cameron has been so quick to defend the NHS. Hannan's comments have jeopardized a long-standing rebuilding and rebranding program by the Conservative party, one that has placed it well-poised to win a Blair-esque majority in the next general election.

And with some very stormy political clouds ahead, it's of little surprise that Gordon Brown is eager to jump on Hannan's remarks in an attempt to derail the Tory train.

"It is understandable that the Conservative leadership have tried to distance themselves from those in Tory ranks who criticise the NHS," Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently remarked. "But the truth is that there are two Tory faces on the NHS. Behind all the recent talk of commitment, the party has not truly been reformed."

To make matters worse for Cameron, Burnham has called on Cameron to bar Hannan and the other members of the Atlantic Bridge Group from the upcoming Conservative party conference.

Which clearly places David Cameron in something of a quandry: if he forbids Daniel Hannan and the other members of the Atlantic Bridge Group from attending his party's convention, it will sew disunity within his party and disrupt Tory momentum. If he allows them to attend, Gordon Brown and Andy Burnham will use it as an opportunity to continue smearing the Tories with "hidden agenda" fear mongering.

Unfortunately in Britain -- as in Canada -- the focus on the political side of the health care debate has disrupted any attempt to substantively discuss the issues surrounding the matter.

For example, health care quality in Britain has seemingly stagnated over the past two decades.

Unfortunately, forcing David Cameron to juggle his support of the NHS with Daniel Hannan's criticisms of it draws attention away from issues such as this. Whatever they may have to say about it in public, Gordon Brown and Andy Burnham are not really doing the British public any good by trying to transform the NHS into a political hand grenade.