Obamacare: The Unimaginable Suffering That Awaits Us

Abortion clinic - picture posed  by modelThere is a vital reason for all Americans to take a close look at how, specifically, the various government-run, single-payer healthcare systems around the world have already affected the lives of the people living under them. This is vital because Barack Obama and the Democrats actually have their sights set on creating precisely such a system here in the United States. For them, Obamacare is, and always has been, nothing more than a stepping stone toward their ultimate goal of a single-payer leviathan administered entirely by the federal government. Indeed, they’ve been quite clear about their intentions:

• In early August, Senator Harry Reid was asked whether his goal was to eventually use Obamacare as a springboard to a single-payer system. “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes,” he replied. “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever.”

• In late October, Rep. John Conyers stated that Obamacare was just “a very small and modest bill,” and that Congressional Democrats were already contemplating ways to pass “universal healthcare for everybody, single payer.” “That’s what the new direction is,” Conyers affirmed, even as the supposedly “small and modest” Obamacare project was proving to be nothing more than a colossal lie administered with inexpressible incompetence.

• Nancy Pelosi, too, is on record stating: “I have supported single payer for longer than many of you have been—since you’ve been born, than you’ve lived on the face of the earth. So I think, I have always thought, that was the way to go.”

• Kathleen Sebelius, the chief architect of Obamacare’s pathetic rollout last month, has candidly declared herself to be “all for a single-payer [healthcare] system eventually.” On October 7, she told interviewer Jon Stewart that “if we could have perhaps figured out a pathway [to single-payer], that may have been a reasonable solution.”
And of course President Obama himself has been unambiguous about his own views on this matter:

• At an AFL-CIO conference in 2003, Obama said: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan…. ‘Everybody in. Nobody out.’ … That’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.”

• At an SEIU Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, Obama declared: “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal healthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as President…. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out …”

• On August 4, 2007, Obama announced that he planned to pass healthcare reform legislation and then “build off that system to … make it more rational.” “By the way,” he added, “Canada did not start off immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step.”

• In the summer of 2008, Obama said: “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.”

• And in June 2009, Obama told an American Medical Association audience that “there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well.”
So, now that we know definitively what Obama and the Democrats ultimately want, let us look at the track record of single-payer systems around the world, so that we can see exactly what is in store for us if we follow the counsel of these masterminds. A monumentally important 2008 Cato Institute study offers keen insights into those systems: 

Great Britain

Under Britain’s highly centralized National Health Service (NHS), some 750,000 ailing and desperate people are currently on waiting lists for admission to a hospital. More than half of all British patients must wait more than 18 weeks to receive care of any kind. For most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within that time frame. For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is just 20 percent. Cancer patients must sometimes wait as long as eight months for treatment, and roughly 40 percent of them never even get to see an oncologist. Many who were considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time their treatment is finally made available. Indeed, this is the sad fate of nearly one-in-five Britons with colon cancer. In addition, many life-saving procedures such as kidney dialysis and open-heart surgery are subject to explicit rationing, and treatment is often denied altogether to patients who are judged too ill or too old for the procedures to be worth the costs.


Physicians and modern medical equipment (such as MRI units and CT scanners) are in short supply nationwide, and at any given time as many as 800,000 Canadians are awaiting necessary medical treatment. Across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), it takes an average of 17.7 weeks for a patient to go through the process of seeing his or her general practitioner (GP), getting a referral to consult with a specialist, and receiving final treatment. And that figure does not even include the time a patient must wait to see a GP in the first place. Canada’s longest waiting periods are for procedures such as hip or knee replacements and cataract surgery, which could arguably be classified as elective. According to the journal Health Affairs, a 65-year-old Canadian man requiring a routine hip replacement must wait more than six months for this surgery. In August 2006, then-Canadian Medical Association president Brian Day lamented that “this is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week, and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

There are likewise protracted waiting periods for more urgent procedures such as neurosurgery and vascular surgery, where delays can dramatically affect a patient’s chances of survival. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that 50 patients in Ontario alone had recently died while they were on the waiting list for cardiac catheterization. In an address to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, University of Ottawa Heart Institute cardiologist Richard F. Davies noted that in a single year, 71 Ontario patients had died before being able to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery, while another 121 had been “removed from the [waiting] list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery,” and 44 others had left the province to have their surgery performed elsewhere—usually in the United States.


Because cutting-edge instruments such as MRI units and CT scanners in Italy are in short supply as compared to the United States, Italian patients must wait, on average, 70 days for a mammogram, 74 days for an endoscopy, and 23 days for a sonogram. Moreover, the nation’s public hospitals are largely considered substandard, unsanitary, and overcrowded.


Because Spain has a severe shortage of primary care physicians and nurses, patients are not free to select their own healthcare providers. Rather, they are assigned a primary care doctor from a list of physicians in their local community, and if they need more specialized care, they must obtain a referral from that doctor. On average, Spaniards must wait approximately 65 days to get an appointment with a specialist—including, for instance, 81 days to see a gynecologist and 71 days to see a neurologist. Similarly, they must wait an average of 62 days for a prostectomy and 123 days for hip-replacement surgery. And a number of vital health services that U.S. citizens take for granted—such as rehabilitation, convalescence, and care for those with terminal illness—are virtually unavailable in Spain, where public nursing homes, retirement homes, hospices, and convalescence facilities are in limited supply.


Portugal has only one general practitioner per 1,500 people in its population, and only about one-seventh as many MRI units per capita as the United States. Thus, despite guarantees of “universal coverage,” waiting lists are so long and so prevalent that the European Observatory on Health Systems says that they resemble “de facto rationing.” More than 150,000 Portuguese are currently on waiting lists for surgery, out of a population of just 10.6 million. Further, there is little freedom to choose one’s own doctor anywhere in the country; patients may change their GP only by applying in writing to the NHS and explaining their reasons.


Long and growing waiting lists are a serious problem in Norway, where citizens must consult a government list in order to choose a general practitioner who subsequently acts as a gatekeeper for whatever specialty services and providers they may need. On any given day, some 280,000 Norwegians (out of a population of just 4.6 million) are waiting for care. The average wait for hip-replacement surgery is more than four months; for a prostectomy, nearly three months; and for a hysterectomy, more than two months. Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission must wait longer than 90 days before they can be admitted.


Greece has fewer than one-eighth the number of general practitioners that would be required to meet the overall population’s demand. Patients routinely wait as long as six months for surgery, five months for an outpatient appointment with specialists in fields like hypertension or neurology, and 30 days for just a simple blood test. The country’s public hospitals are widely considered substandard; most suffer from severe staffing shortages caused, in large part, by low pay.


Leftists revere Communist Cuba for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the government-run, universal healthcare system that was put in place by Fidel Castro. Many of these admirers—among the most notable of whom is the filmmaker Michael Moore—form their impressions of the Cuban healthcare system from its tourist hospitals, which are, by any standards, clean, well staffed, and of excellent quality. Indeed Cuba, in an effort to attract wealthy foreigners who are willing to spend their money on healthcare services, has pioneered the practice of so-called “health tourism” through agencies such as SERVIMED, which markets Cuban medical services abroad. Calling Cuba “the ideal destination for your health,” SERVIMED frankly admits to being “a tourist subsystem.”

But after providing for the needs of affluent foreigners (and of the country’s top government officials), the Cuban healthcare system has little left for the general public. Hospitals for ordinary Cubans are typically unsanitary. Syringes are frequently used to inject multiple patients without any sterilization, and “disposable” gloves are likewise used and reused. Consequently, infectious diseases such an impetigo and hepatitis—and infestations such as scabies, lice and fungal diseases—are commonplace in the Cuban hospital population.
Moreover, Cuban hospitals have serious shortages of antibiotics, insulin, heart drugs, blood-pressure meters, disinfectants, and even clean water and soap.

It is noteworthy that in the pre-Castro years of the 1950s, the Cuban population as a whole had access to outstanding medical care through association clinics (clinicas mutualistas) which predated the American concept of health maintenance organizations by decades, as well as through private clinics. At that time the Cuban medical system ranked among the best in the world, as evidenced by the fact that it had Latin America’s lowest infant-mortality rate—comparable to Canada’s and better than those of France, Japan, and Italy.

So the evidence is crystal clear. As the Cato Institute puts it, “In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.” By contrast, “those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. In other words, socialized medicine works—as long as it isn’t socialized medicine.”

Yet socialized medicine is precisely the direction in which Obama and Democrats wish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to steer the United States of America. What, then, does this tell us about the judgment and the motivations of these men and women?

Some questions simply answer themselves.

Don’t miss this week’s Glazov Gang, which explores To Lie for ObamaCare.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • King Rama

    Thailand actually has a pretty good (private) health care system. If you’re not going to die within the next 24 hours, then sometimes its cheaper to fly to Thailand for international quality health care [paid for up front in cash] than it is to pay in your home country (when your insurance doesn’t cover what you need which sounds like its going to be an increasing problem). The doctors are local people but well trained. Thailand is a little far away from the US. If the Mexicans were smart they’d get in on the same gig.

    • Zeke from Cabin Creek

      This is being done or is planning to be done in Dubai, I believe.

      • defcon 4

        LOL, yeah I’m going to fly to Dubai to be treated by an islam0nazi doctor. Ever heard of the concept of medical jihad?

  • King Rama

    While I’m at it. Thailand has some serious problems with police corruption and mafia style “shake down” of local businesses, but other than that its the closest implementation of “raw capitalism” that I’ve ever seen. The government’s role in people’s lives is almost zero. Even people who work in factories are often small time entrepeneurs on the side – selling lipstick or homemade sweets to each other at lunch time. There are some casualties, but on the whole quality of life is going up – fridges, TVs, iphones, motorbikes, cars, American style houses… There’s still poverty, but there’s also hope. It feels a lot like the 50s.

    Contrast with Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia….

  • Jason Vickers

    But it is only fair guys. Can’t you see. Stupid tea party morons. Single payer is awesome.

    • oandroplex700

      very stupid comment

    • SoCalMike

      Death at a discount.
      Great “Deal”. Fair too.

      • David Horozitz

        David Horozitz Thank you FrontPage- NOW according to the World Health Organisation’s league table the US is listed below all of the countries, bar Cuba, condemned by FrontPage. In the Bloomberg Survey even Cuba rates a better medical service than the US, which is listed as having the highest spend per capita with the poorest return. So Capitalism isn’t working! Why on earth anyone is afraid of a public health system I do not know- it is humanitarian, all other Western countries have them and they operate better than the US’s. FACT!

    • WW4

      SIngle payer would indeed be awesome for many years. People would love it because it simplifies their life enormously. Employers would love it because it takes a huge expense off their books. Providers would love it (for a while) because it greatly simplifies their practice. The only person who won’t love it (at first) is the middleman whom you pay, who rations your care even though you’ve been paying him for years and he’s profited from that. The same guy who’s not sure, yet, whether he loves or hates the ACA.

      So single payer would be awesome…seriously…until it stops being awesome. Because the government is broke and payments to those providers start coming in at lower and lower rates.

      • Cara_C

        Single payer would never be awesome for those who value independence, liberty and choice.

        • WW4

          As opposed to a system that compelled employers to pay for employees’ care? A system that effectively rationed care and selected your provider? A system where the patient/consumer was the least important part of the equation? Where the consumer ultimately picks up the bill for out of control, nebulous costs? If you really hold to those values beyond lip service, you need to ask what kind of system keeps those things optimal for consumer and provider, and advocate for it.

          • Cara_C

            Wow, that’s a pretty involved man straw man argument. I’m for health care freedom, not a government-designed or employer-based system.

          • WW4

            Wow, that’s pretty vague, even for an unconsidered opinion. So what is “health care freedom?”

        • Enders_Shadow

          You really don’t understand how single ACTUALLY works. Living the the UK I can register with an General Practitioner I want. I can go to any hospital that he recommends. Yes, certain treatments are not available for free – but those are only top end ones.
          There is a debate to be had about the amount of the GDP that should be dedicated to health care. However the reality that the USA spends a far greater proportion for a significantly worse outcome is one that the opponents of single-payer need to engage with. If the UK spent as much as the USA, our would be amazing. As it is, it’s good enough for EVERYBODY, unlike yours.

    • http://twitter.com/Throckmorton09 Biff Wellington

      gnarly, dude…totally awesome, Spicoli…

  • adumbrate

    The only way this will happen is if they can twist blame for current problems away from govt and on to GOP and private insurers for changing existing policies.

    We are in a war of the informed vs the useful idiots. My bet is there are more intellectuals and their herds of ignorants than there are people who can read what is right in front of them – your quotes listed in 1 resource , helps.

  • SoCalMike

    Premature Death at a Discount is such a great deal the thieves and liars promoting it (Obama, Reid and co.) were kind enough to themselves to exempt themselves from the very poison they ate busy forcing on everyone else.
    Because they are just swell guys who care about people.

    • LaPortaMA


  • LindaRivera

    ObamaCare was never about giving Americans affordable health care. ObamaCare was designed by American-haters to PUNISH Americans.

    ObamaCare was deliberately designed to make health care much more expensive; cause Americans to lose their jobs; create a lot of stress and anxiety and DESTROY the economy.

    Obama and his ruthless, anti-freedom, anti-human rights regime are reminiscent of Queen Marie Antoinette, who when she was told the people were hungry and had no bread replied: LET THEM EAT CAKE.

    • CosmotKat

      This is the left’s version of the final solution for knuckle dragging Americans.

    • LaPortaMA

      Look up ACoA. Adult Children of Alcoholics. Unrecovered, that is.

  • Robert Byers

    And Mexico is so bad, people with money don’t even use the healthcare system…they pay the bill straight away. They get immediate results with Docs and hospitals.

  • Consider

    So the Cuban hospitals for those who pay are good, and those for others are bad.
    And in the UK you wait 18 weeks before being admitted to a NHS hospital. And in Greece… and so on.
    The message is, when and where you pay, it’s better.
    If you can afford to pay, of course.
    Otherwise you can boast the glory of giving up your ghost for lack of money, while preserving your independence, indivdiualism, self reliance, not begging for assistance and all other values that made America great….
    Dying the American way.

  • mrtapeguy

    I’m very familiar with the problems in some of these countries but of course the places where it works quite well are not mentioned: Australia, Switizerland, israel to name a few. Switzerland has the individual mandate as it was meant to be and Australia has a public-private partnership. The main problem to be addressed is doctors leaving because the insurance reimbursement is too low.

    • Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi!

      Australian government health care is still pretty good. It covers all the basics: childbirth, heart attack, car crashes, cancer, tuberculosis, etc… It is still, nevertheless, advisable to have additional private health insurance for what is known as “electic surgery” – aka things that won’t kill you straight away but may be quite painful or inconvenient. Without private health insurance you can end up waiting a long time in queues.

      The same goes for the education system. Public (ie government sponsered) education is reasonable enough though not amazing. Those who can afford it elect for private education, which is also partially subsidized by the government. Most of these private schools are nominally christian of some protestant denomination or another though religion does not play a significant role in the curriculum. Homeschooling is also an option.

      Homeschooling in France is technically legal, but highly regulated. With all the red tape and government inspections you get the strong feeling the State is not happy about it. L’Education National is dominated by socialist and quite a lot of propaganda and historical revisionism slips into the curriculum. There are Catholic schools and Jewish schools but these are religious in nature. You don’t really have the option of paying more to get better teaching without the religious element.

      The government schools in Thailand are pretty bad, and those who can afford it tend to opt for the Catholic schools – even if they are Buddhist, just because the quality of education is better.

  • CosmotKat

    Obamacare is the equivalent to the Wansee Protocol for the American People. The Progressive’s have been plotting the final solution since Harry Truman.

  • FelixSD

    Want to know where the health care is best? Look at the cancer survival stats in all of countries. Problem is if they are skewed, because people don’t get in to be treated or the govt. doesn’t want to report it, you may not see how bad it is. Having worked in the medical (hospitals ERs) for 20 years, I can tell you that people do not have to wait weeks or months to get treatment, money notwithstanding. With the new edict, that will change, in part because there won’t be doctors available, and in large part because one the government is involved, you will have NO CHOICE. Here is my not so expert analysis: The govt. can do what private industry can do, but at HALF THE EFFICIENCY AND 10 TIMES THE COST.

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    It’s pretty clear the general plan is to follow the money when it comes to treating people. But consider that the money seems to be flowing from so many places that are hostile to the US. Could it be that our once great and advancing healthcare system is being marginalized and sold off to the highest bidder as a form of national genocide? Are Americans going to be killed off by every means possible? When will the famine begin?

    • Judith77

      Considering the largest world wide food grower and supplier for the U.S. is Monsanto and -0 signed them into our FDA, it is likely your predictions are true. Monsanto (agent orange developer-owned by Gates) is outlawed in some countries for their massive hostile food takeover. (they sue organic farmers who happen to catch the pollen spread. NO LIE). check it out.

      • Sheik Yerbouti

        Seems like the organic farmers would have a better case for taking Monsanto to court (I know, I know, never gonna happen).

      • P_Ang

        Organic farmers regularly sue Monsanto, I’m quite aware of that.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Meanwhile, the spineless Republican Party has betrayed their voters during the hour of their greatest need, and at the same time the American people, unlike the long subjugated Egyptians, have become too timid and paralyzed by fear to rise up in the streets to protest this monstrosity from being imposed even though it was all sold on lies and even though all major polls clearly show an overwhelming majority of Americans are against the imposition of Obamacare. Indeed, if the American people won’t rise up in the streets to stop this monstrosity, then they will deserve exactly what they end up getting.

  • redheart

    Costa Rica

  • LindaRivera

    Will the grave INJUSTICE perpetrated against hard-working British taxpayers be copied in America?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk: Foreign women are flying to Britain to have ‘two or three’ babies on NHS. Women return to the UK on multiple occasions to have their babies in British hospitals…

    Other border officials reported women coming back to the UK for their second
    and third baby. “Sometimes they will come back for their second and third
    baby. Sometimes they will quite blatantly say “I’m coming because the care
    is better. I’m having twins, triplets,” the official told researchers…

    Officers also highlighted the issue of women flying in pregnant with babies
    with serious conditions that were certain to require expensive and complex
    treatment that is not available in their own country.

    Other women used the period following the birth and the fact the child had
    been born into the UK to help their application for leave to remain in the
    UK. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10396142/Foreign-women-are-flying-to-Britain-to-have-two-or-three-babies-on-NHS.html

    A comment on the above article from Cumbrian45:
    I was out dog-walking a few weeks ago and chatted with a guy. He told me he has two daughters, both doctors and both working in hospitals close to Heathrow. They were both run ragged and worked off their feet, he told me. The cause of this? Pregnant foreign women flying into England to have babies on the NHS!
    But that wasn’t the bit his daughters were upset about; it was having to turn away white, ethnic British women because there were no beds for them, and get them sent to hospitals miles away from their families.

  • Dallas25305

    How is ObozoCare working for you folks? The lying, racist Barak Hussein Obama and his Unafordable Health Act? It was never about giving you better health care. It was about taking you health care away and replacing it with CRAP. If your a middle class American your health Care cost will rise big time, so will your deductible and you will get poorer care. Any older person who previously had great care from his company will now find he is facing Obama’s death panels now. Many older white people near cities like Detroit, Phillie or Chicago will find themselves sent to Doctors in the hood. A place were they will have to run the gauntlet of racist black power gangs looking for victims. However take note that you will be paying higher costs to pay for the racist gangs and drug dealers in the hood. This is what the racist Chairman Hussein planned in the first place. Good luck with getting good service if you are considered an enemy of the Peoples Liberal Socialist Democrap party or Obama. Obozo’s KGB which used to be the IRS will see to that. Obozo has already shown that with his racist IRS attack on the Tea Party.

  • Robert Lande

    According to John Stossel there are a lot of CT scanners and MRI machines in Canada if you are a dog or cat. The equipment is located in veterinary hospitals.

  • Scott

    I live in Australia where we have private health insurance as an option, mainly for dental, and for elective surgery. I can get into see a general doctor at his practice with 24 hours or less notice and those visits are free (paid by govt). I can go to our local hospital emergency room and be treated for free. Wait time depends on seriousness and time of day. The last few visits by my self or immediate family have averaged a wait time of less than 30 minutes. The government pays for any life threatening surgery (eg cancer treatment), and there is very llttle waiting time. The only things you may have to wait months for are things like hip/knee replacements and other life comforting by non life threatening conditions.
    Dental is not covered and even a filling or regular checkup is not that cheap ($150-$240)

    • Sailsman

      “Free”? FU, stupid parasite.

      • WW4

        Presumably he understands that he pays for them through his taxes.

        • http://twitter.com/Throckmorton09 Biff Wellington

          hard to say. if he uses words like “free,” perhaps he pays no taxes…

  • Arf

    Looks like the eugenicists are finally getting their way: 90% of the world’s population eliminated. Wonder who that might leave? Well, maybe a million wealthy people and 400 million of us needed to take care of them. The remaining 6 billion people would be eliminated through disease, starvation, crime and of course war. It’s certainly ironic that the idiot environmentalists would be eliminated but their animals would be well protected. There will be plenty of clean water but little need for it.

  • http://twitter.com/Throckmorton09 Biff Wellington

    If there is anyone who still thinks the ACA was not designed to fail, please give me a call. I’ve got some ocean-front property in Montana you probably would be interested in…

    • boatkitten

      The ACA is almost ditto to what they have in Switzerland — going on 20 years now. Nope. Not failing….

  • Ernie kaputnik

    Whenever a bunch of turds like Obama, Pelosi and Reid endorse legislation as a “good idea” yet exempt themselves from being subjected to it, I know it’s bad for me. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat cake.”

  • mrpoohead

    David Horozitz Thank you FrontPage- NOW according to the World Health Organisation’s league table the US is listed below all of the countries, bar Cuba, condemned by FrontPage. In the Bloomberg Survey even Cuba rates a better medical service than the US, which is listed as having the highest spend per capita with the poorest return. So Capitalism isn’t working! Why on earth anyone is afraid of a public health system I do not know- it is humanitarian, all other Western countries have them and they operate better than the US’s. FACT!

  • LaPortaMA

    1) Fascism is sneaky and multiform. 2) Calling it single payer sounds like a lie in the making, as the feds will exempt themselves again.