With socialized health care, would Palin's Downs baby have been a numbers casualty?

Question

Anyone willing to debate the health care issue honestly knows that health care is a precious resource that must be rationed and not and entitlement with endless supply. That said, if we had socialized health care with a pregnant Sarah Palin carrying a down's baby, would the all knowing government bureaucrats who make the rationing decisions in socialized health care schemes have decided that that baby had to go in order to divert health care resources elsewhere?

Answer 1

It's entirely possible.  I've heard of cases in where people with terminal cancer can't get treatment to extend their lives.

http://gawfer.net/2008/08/the-benefits-o...

I

Answer 2

You really do not know what you are talking about.  There is no rationing of health care services under any socialized medicine system

Answer 3

wow, harsh but something to think about.  Sounds kind of like China, or n**i Germany.  I never even considered that part of the argument against social medicine.  I wouldn't doubt these elitist guru's going that way.  

Really gut wrenching isn't it?!

Answer 4

Please just stop. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you're only embarrassing yourself.

Answer 5

You know it doesn't work that way. You are peddling scare talk. Please stop saying lies to fluff your candidate. The current insurance monopoly in America is way more likely to see a subscriber denied the care for which he or she has paid thousands of dollars over the years, than any totalitarian set-up in any country, of any economic system.

For you: If you have to lie to make your point, how much is said point worth?