"compassionate" centralized government managed health industry?

"compassionate" centralized government managed health industry?

No. Anyone who really had a charitable heart and wished his fellow citizens to actually enjoy quality health care would run as fast as possible from national health care or government boards charged with deciding what sorts of treatments were permissible.

"Deadly Rationing: The gatekeeper for Great Britain's national health care system is denying cancer patients drugs that would extend their lives. Why? Because the medication is considered too expensive.

"The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the government agency that decides which treatments the National Health Service will pay for, has effectively banned Lapatinib, a drug that was shown to slow the progression of breast cancer, and Sutent, which is the only medicine that can prolong the lives of some stomach cancer patients.

Banning beneficial drugs due to cost is nothing new in Britain. NICE, which has to be one of history's most ironic acronyms, forbade the use of Tarceva, a lung cancer drug proven to extend patients' lives, and Abatacept, even though it's one of the only drugs that has been shown in clinical testing to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Once again, we have to ask: Do we really want to use the British system as the model for a U.S. health care regime?

Promises of an effective, cost-effective health care system operated by the federal government are cruel fabrications. The British system shows that the state makes a mess of health care. So does the Canadian plan, which is plagued with unhealthy and often deadly waiting times for treatment."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...

Unlike some who objected to Bush' phrase, 'compassionate conservative', I did because it is redundant.