One of the criticisms of the government option, otherwise called "public option", is that it will lead to the rationing of medical treatments.  The tyranny of the majority says that it won't but let's look to our neighbors to the north again for how it REALLY works.

Vancouver is going to cut the number of surgeries because of a lack of funding.  But I thought that government run health care would not lead to such rationing of care?  Vancouver is going to start cutting surgeries for vascular, neurosurgery and other "medically necessary procedures".

The president of the British Columbia Medical Association, Dr. Brian Brodie,  is quoted in the article as saying:

“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place.”

But the most telling part of this article is this:

"Total health spending in British Columbia was $15.7 billion this year,up about four per cent over last year’s total of 15.1 billion,according to figures provided by the ministry of health."

Let me get this straight.  British Columbia has a population of 4.4 million and it costs BC $15.7 billion to cover their medical costs?  President Obama and those in Congress say that to insure the "50 million" uninsured it will cost about $1 trillion, maybe as low as $900 billion over 10 years.  But, if we use Canadian numbers and factor that in with our "50 million" uninsured, the total cost would be about $178 billion per year.  Over a 10 year period, that would be $1.78 trillion.  Much, much higher than what the White House and Congress would have us believe.  And like we all know, no government program ever costs less next year than it did this year.