Canadians Push for 'Private Option'

A great report at today's Los Angeles Times, "In Canada, a Move Toward a Private Healthcare Option":

When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Read the whole thing, here.

I'm surprised, frankly, that the Times' editors even ran this piece. The paper's been one of the country's biggest journalistic shills for ObamaCare. When I reported on the massive Adam Schiff town hall in August - which was the lead story on that night's local ABC News broadcast - the Times competely ignored the story in the next day's paper. Instead, we saw a tearjerker piece on the massive free healthcare clinic at the L.A. Forum. I'm putting the Los Angeles Times practically in the same category as its New York Times counterpart. See, "The New York Times ACORN Cover-Up; or, How the Right-Roots Brings Down the Old Grey Lady." Once in a while, some fair-minded journalism gets through, like today's piece on Canada above. Otherwise, it's pretty frustrating reading the newspaper in the mornings.

Hillary Clinton on Iran: 'Transparency or Sanctions'

Here's Hillary Clinton's interview this morning on Face the Nation, "Clinton on Iran: Transparency or Sanctions":

Clinton spoke of transparency and diplomacy, but not on the question of military force. Even Robert Gates said all options should remain on the table. Clinton sounded like a model of equanimity here. She was tougher during the campaign. See, for example, Johanna Neuman,"Was Hillary Clinton Right on Iran?"

Since When Did 'Homosexual' Become a Bad Word?

I blogged the gay marriage controversy for months following the passage of Proposition 8 last November. With the California Supreme Court's ruling last May, some activists argued for an appeal to the U.S Supreme Court (an unfavorable venue, given the Court's current conservative majority). And just this week gay rights activists submitted a ballot proposal to the Secretary of State's office. A group called "Love Honor Cherish" filed the measure, but other groups have argued that 2010 is too soon for a new gay marriage push. Some fear that a failed campaign could set back the cause.

Meanwhile, voters in Maine, Michigan, and Washington State will have a chance to vote on gay rights initiatives this fall, just one year after the contentious California gay marriage fight. In Maine, it turns out there's a big controversy over at a conservative advertisement that apparently changes an AP news headline to include "homosexual." According to AmericaBlog, "That headline only exists on anti-gay sites. It's not from the Associated Press." The orginal story is here, "Gay Rights Group: Maine Diocese Violating Tax Law. "

It's not immediately clear why the Yes on One campaign would alter the headline for the ad buy. Perhaps "Homosexual Advocacy Group" has more negative connotations than "Gay Right Group." No matter, the campaign should be criticized if they've dishonestly altered an AP report for political purposes.

Having said that, what's even more interesting is the reaction on the left. Darleen Click points us to a Feministing post on the controversy, which includes this blast of hatred:

Truly fighting for equal rights requires a social change and public pressure. Why did textbook companies begin to consciously include photos of students of color in their course materials after the civil rights movement? Because diversity--of ethnicity, of community, and of culture -is the norm, not the exception. The idea of an "other," of a "minority," or even the implication of a same-sex marriage being "non-traditional," alienates and isolates queer individuals and families worldwide.

Teach children about same-sex marriage in schools. Never refer to queer-identified individuals as "homosexuals." Treat churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages like those who refuse to perform interracial marriages.

But if Maine's Question 1 is defeated, churches will remain the same, school curriculum will retain its heteronormativity, and "homosexuals" will still fear living openly. Maine conservatives have nothing to worry about.

Never refer to individuals as "homosexuals." But in fact, that's what they are. A look over at Wikipedia turns up this straightforward discussion:

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. A homosexual person is sexually and romantically attracted to people of their own gender. Men who are attracted to other men are called "gay." Women who are attracted to other women can be called "gay" as well, but are usually called "lesbians". People who are attracted to men and women are called bisexual. Together homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people make up the "LGBT community." It is difficult to say how many people are homosexual. Homosexuality is known to exist in all cultures and countries, though some governments deny that homosexuality exists in their countries.

That's how I would explain what a "homosexual" is to my own kids. There's nothing discriminatory about it. Perhaps the Yes on One campaign sought to tap into "homosexual" as synonomous with "homo," which is an anti-gay slur. That said, the outrage among gay rights activists is even more cynically exploitative, and pushing "queer" as the acceptable postmodern terminology is bound to alienate traditional families. Certainly families in Maine have a right to be concerned that schools will ram down politically-correct notions of gay marriage as "normal" on children.

More honesty all around would be helpful. But if anything, this battle shows what the gay-rights ayatollahs are all about. Just like last year, anyone of traditional orientation is likely to face Stalinist show trials should they deviate from the radical left's "queer" rights agenda.

What a disgrace.