Univeral health care has appeal in its promise to provide treatment to everyone, no exceptions. The very moral thing to do. However, no exceptions does not mean no limitations.

And now that a prominent Canadian politician has come to the U.S. for a lifesaving procedure, questions that Washington politicians have brushed aside are re-emerging……What does this say about a nation’s delivery of health care?

"Last August, in the middle of a season of politician-roasting town halls over the government overhaul of the American health-care system, the Detroit Free Press reported that our neighbors to the north had begun contracting with American hospitals to handle overflow from their oft-praised single-payer system.

“The effort by Canada attempted to legitimize a natural flow of people with means across the border to seek the immediate care that Canadas fully-public system could not provide. That story didnt get too much traction in either the U.S. or Canada, mainly due to the efforts of politicians in both countries insisting that central control of the health-care sector is necessary for reform.

“However, that may change now that a prominent politician in Canada has followed the same path as many of his fellow citizens in order to save his own life: ‘Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.’ …

“If an American governor had to go outside the U.S. to seek the kind of immediate care he needed, that would be considered scandalous. In fact, if an American governor had to leave his or her own state to seek expert care, Id expect it to be a fairly controversial move, unless it was treatment for a rather exotic malady that perhaps only a Mayo clinic could handle. … The motto among the statists seems to be: State-controlled access for thee, instant access for me."