Saturday, July 25, 2009

Another lefty attack on Shona Holmes

Another Shona Holmes bashing story, "Canadian health care hardly a Marxism threat", was written by Naomi Lakritz (Calgary Herald, July 24, 2009).

Along with the usual dumping on the U.S. system and the trumpeting of Canada's single-payer monopoly (Lakritz even trots out useless Liberal turd Ujjal Dosanjh: nuf said), here's Lakritz on Shona Holmes:

"The latest poster girl for the socialism-scaredy cat crowd is Shona Holmes, who re-mortgaged her Waterdown, Ont. home so she could spend $100,000 to get a growth near her pituitary gland treated at the Mayo Clinic. Holmes stars in an ad sponsored by Patients United Now, and she claims Canadian doctors told her a referral to a specialist would take several months. Holmes's pitch is ironically quite a nice plug for Canadian health care, because nobody up here has to remortgage their home or scrounge up $100,000 to pay for their health care. You almost feel like saying, "the defence rests" after that. Holmes also admits health care is "wonderful" in Ontario. Further, the Canadian health-care system prioritizes cases and people whose situations are dire do get in faster; such triaging is done every day with heart bypass surgery and MRIs. Since no one is privy to Holmes's health records, it's impossible to know how urgent her condition was. "


'The defence rests', my ass. We'll yet see about that!

Holmes got her treatment in the States - BECAUSE CANADIAN SINGLE-PAYER FAILED. If the United States system hadn't been available for Holmes, then what would Lakritz be proudly pointing to? That Holmes should have died waiting in Canada like a true Canadian socialist?

What a FLICKING joke.

Naomi's the one obviously playing the private-option scaredy-cat role.

Nobody has to pay here, eh, Naomi? How about all the taxes we pay and the health cuts we get - where's our choice to by-pass the state-run health monopoly's plan? Where's the choice to buy our own non-government insurance? Why the FLICK should Tommy the Commie Douglas limit any patient's payer or provider choices? Why is the left fearful of free-choice 'private option' in Canada?!

Albertans whine about Stelmach - hey, Liberal McGuinty in Ontario's doing the same thing - single-payer monopolist politcians have no competition and naturally do as they please. Why doesn't Lakritz ask for a competitive health system where there is no monopoly?

Shit, the noise and the narrative in Lakritz's article is the same standard garbage that single-payer monopolist fearmongers were using against Chaoulli. Lakritz probably thinks that the Chaoulli decision was anti-Canadian!

Some of the feedback regarding Lakritz's article was right on:

Anthony Oluwatoyin posted on July 24, 2009:

"Your attack on Ms. Holmes is cruel, unusual and foul. Any patient who even has to worry about the possibility of such a crushing bill rather than risk death on Canada's notorious wait list, commands our admiration and brings up our deepest sympathy. May our Good Lord bless Ms. Holmes as she moves forward. The fact is that Canadians have died waiting for care. The fact is that Canadians are dying on wait lists. The fact is that our Supreme Court has come down on the side of Canadians seeking some private relief to alleviate the pain and consequence of our wait lists. That's our very left-wing, feminist-dominated Supreme Court. The debate has nothing to do with Karl Marx. Incidentally, the adjective is "Marxist," not Marxism. The title of your piece should have been "Canadian health care hardly a Marxist threat." Perhaps you should be more concerned with basic grammar than shameless personal attacks on a brave cancer-survivor. Never mind what is going on in the American side of the debate. If you and federal Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, are so obsessed with American politics then why don't the both of you go back there?! Prime Minister Harper is focussed on Canada and making our system better. How dare you and Ignatief dismiss the tragic reality of even one Canadian?


The real tragedy is that, both at home in Canada and in the States, there are many such as Lakritz who think nothing of dismissing Holmes' experience with socialized medicine. We know what the dismissive crowd on the left says - why, it's only an anecdote, only a minority, a once in a million, an aberration, (as dipshit Liberal Dosanjh propagandized in Lakritz's story!). Socialism is good, because it only hurts some! The individual is not important!

It's disgusting how lefties have latched onto Holmes with such contempt. I'm reminded of radio host Carol Mott's recent reaction to Holmes, (see

Overlooking the basic fact that health care for Holmes couldn't be found in Canada, it is spun by Liberals as a SUCCESS of medicare!

When Lakritz insinuates that no one really knows how bad Holmes' condition was, she means: 'Hey, lookit, folks - maybe this right-wing fearmonger poster girl for privatization is lying! Maybe she wasn't even sick at all'!

Yep - disgusting it is - and Lakritz - the poster girl of liberal smarm - happily rolls in it like a pig in shit.

Iggy the carpetbagger has said squat about health care since he was parachuted into Etobicoke-Lakeshore. His big deal has been UI crap. Dion before him also said squat about health care - Bumbledore's priority was fearmongering about global-warming. And Chretein - well, he was the classic do as I say not as I do duplicitous privatizer. Iggy knows Harper has done a good job. But which politician will acknowledge that Canada's health system needs competitive anti-monopoly reform, from the CHA down to each provinces' plan?

As for Lakritz's contention that Romanow's report be dusted off and implemented - GET REAL.
Honestly. Try Kirby's or Mazankowski's. Forget the socialism.


Another post was by 'Socialism fails' on July 24, 2009:

"Our healthcare system is in an emergency reorganization period currently. Any one who reads the news can see it. In other words it is failing. Why? because it is a socialist model. The proof? the budgets are balloning each and every year. The model does one thing well; it destroy the wealth that is dumped into it. It is not a sustainable model. Those who propose that it is a wondefull system sholuld note that line ups are a symptom, health spending is out of control, rationing is being openly discussed as an option based on lifestyle choices, severe restructuring is underway to postpone the inevitible and every one sreams the same thing; more money! Any thing based on socialism will fail. We can pretend to fool ourselfs that It can work but it will always be the mirage in the desert - it is a system based on theft and weatlh destruction. So keep calling for more money and more government intervention, it will only accelerate the problem; those dollars always come from the taxpayers pocket. We all get poorer for it. The solution will always be the free market. Let people choose instead of the government forcing thier product on us and then propogandizing to us on how lucky we are to have it. Truth be told, if the free market in medicine were to compete with the government forced model it would destroy the socialized model outright, thanks to the power of the consumer to choose. "

Let people choose? HAH!
Liberals operate from the smug standpoint that sheeple are incapable of choosing - and that only a Liberal knows what's best for them.

No comments: