Question:
Any advice about Vision Health Care?
Answer:
WASHINGTON Congressional Democrats on Sunday kept up their attacks on
substandard care for injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as
they prepared for hearings on the issue this week.
"If it's this bad at the outpatient facilities at Walter Reed, how is it
in the rest of the country?" Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on ABC's
"This Week." "Walter Reed is our crown jewel."
It would seem to me that if Walter Reed is the "crown jewel" of a
government-run health care system, as Schumer puts it, would it not also be
the "Crown Jewel" for the democrat vision of health care for our entire
nation as espoused by Hillary Clinton and others?
V.A. hospital care is socialized medicine.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge health care for our vets; and I
think that those who sacrificed so much should get the best of everything.
But let's take a closer look, shall we?
The V.A. hospitals are government run health care.
By Schumer's own admission, the V.A.-run health care system is a failure.
What does that portend for the political futures of a party who, outside of
seeking our defeat in Iraq, have hitched their wagons to a nationalized
health care system for all?
Does the fate that has befallen Walter Reed, and as Schumer put it, quite
possibly many other government-run health care institutions, not suggest
that a much larger, much more complex government-run health care system
would be subject to the same fate, or worse?
The V.A.'s failures should bode fair warning to all who felt that the jury
was still out as to the feasibility of and practicality of a nationalized
health care system.
