Thursday, May 3, 2012

Deciding Who Lives And Dies

Liberals love to control everyone around them. From demanding seatbelts to banning salts and transfats to banning soda in schools, liberals just can’t stop telling you how to live your life. But how far would they really go? Would they deny you medical care if you don’t conform to the way they think you should live? Take a wild guess.

Today’s story comes from Britain, which is often a trendsetter for our left. This story specifically involves a poll conducted by the UK of 1,096 doctors in the National Heath Service. They were asked if the NHS, i.e. the government agency which controls all healthcare in Britain, should have the right to deny non-emergency treatments to smokers and to people who are overweight. Fifty-four percent (54%) answered “YES”.

Think about that for a moment. A slight majority of British doctors (“do no harm” types) felt that the British government should have the right to deny Britons medical care if they were smokers or fat. And don’t forget, in Britain, there really is no other choice for medical care, so this is effectively a ban, not simply a demand that they fund it themselves.

The ostensible reason for this is a shift in attitudes resulting from the need for medical cut backs. In other words, because money is scarce, they want to decide who they consider worthy of receiving treatment and ban everyone else from getting it. But when is money ever not scarce?

And don’t think this is theoretical either. A prior investigation has already found that 25 of 91 Primary Care Trusts in England (think “Obama Insurance Exchange”) have imposed treatment bans since April 2011 in an attempt to save ₤20 billion by 2015. Indeed, in parts of England, smokers and obese people are being rejected for hip and knee replacements so these trusts can allocate their resources to people whose lifestyles they deem more justified of receiving treatment. And you can bet that once it’s acceptable to deny “non-emergency” care to undesirables, emergency care will be next. . . like in euthanasia countries, where doctors now decide if your life is worth saving or if the state wouldn’t be better off letting you shuffle your now-worthless ass off this mortal coil.

So once again, liberals are dividing the world into those they like and those they don’t and they are trying to use the power of government to punish those they don’t. The NHS is a system from which Britons cannot escape. . . just like a single payer plan would be here. They make you pay massive taxes for that system your entire life, i.e. they turn you into a slave, with the promise that you will be taken care of. Then they deny medical care to those they dislike. So much for medical care being a basic human right.

This is the problem with liberal “do-gooder-ism.” It quickly becomes fascism of the worst kind. From banning things you eat to taking your children if you teach them the wrong lessons to imprisoning you for having the wrong thoughts to letting you die if they don’t like you. Don’t ever believe a liberal when they start whining about human rights or dignity because they don’t really mean it. . . they always omit the critical words they are really thinking: “for some.”

62 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

I agree. Liberals are just hate-filled little snobs.

Tennessee Jed said...

there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy involved here. Most liberal entitlement programs have never in any way attempted to "means test" or differentiate between those who have made poor choices and those who have had a run of "bad luck." I do think there are probably a lot of "well meaning" liberals who respond to the warm puppy, heart string tugging messages" that are put out there by the left. They are folks who actually haven't thought through the process of just what is entailed.

What I find even more interesting, is that British National Healthcare must be straing for dollars and resources? Who knew? I thought it was supposed to be the model for what health care delivery should be. Guess not.

T-Rav said...

I really don't see why the Britons continue to keep this system. It seems like three or four times a week, you hear of some new outrage in British hospitals, like patients being misplaced or discharged with inadequate treatment or just being treated like crap. This system is not only inefficient, it's made what should be a kind-hearted profession mean-spirited. But that's socialism for you.

tryanmax said...

Leftism is classism, pure and simple. Just because they deny themselves the right to discriminate based on pedigree cannot stop them from finding other criteria. Ironic that they turn to what I would characterize as "lifestyle choices."

Odd how the same ideology which declares there should be no judgement of what one does with one's reproductive and neuroendocrine systems is so quick to judge what one does with one's respiratory and gastrointestinal systems.

The inconsistency of leftist reasoning will eventually drive me mad.

BevfromNYC said...

Well, this should enhance this discussion a bit.

An abstract from an article in the British Journal of Medicine opines on the ethics of "after-birth abortions".

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/04/12/medethics-2011-100411

Yes, folks the medical community in Europe is exploring the ethics of "aborting" newborns...and not just for life-threatening health reaasons either.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

This reminds me of the movie "Gattica"...

T-Rav said...

Bev, I was thinking more of Germany circa 1940, but that works too.

BevfromNYC said...

Here is a link to the full article
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/04/12/medethics-2011-100411.full

"...If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections..."

Tam said...

Bev, there was a lawsuit, I think it was here in AZ (or it was a national case discussed locally, I can't remember...) of "wrongful birth." Basically, a family had a baby with a health issue that wasn't predicted in pre-natal care and if the parents had known, they would have aborted. They sued the doctor for wrongful birth. It was an unsuccessful lawsuit, thank goodness, but the fact that people could even have this thought AFTER THEIR CHILD IS BORN is incomprehensible to me. And sick, sick, sick. And to think in England these people would probably get health care preference over a fat guy.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, What's funny is that they think they are the opposite. They swear that they love everyone and they are only trying to help everyone -- and anyone who stands in the way is full of hate. Then they go and do things like this.

rlaWTX said...

Tam, I think I heard that the case settled for several million dollars...

Tam said...

rlaWTX, Ugh...I was apparently misinformed, or underinformed. Awful.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, It is stunning hypocrisy. They won't means test anything, nor will they allow changes that would help people develop independent behaviors and traits. They swear that it's immoral or "fascist" to attach strings to things like welfare. Yet here, they don't mind at all because they don't approve of your lifestyle.

They also claim repeatedly that "quality healthcare is a human right," and they whine that rich people get better care. Yet, apparently, health care is only a human right for some humans -- those they like.

As for the British system being out of cash, that's one of those facts we all know are supposed to ignore to make the fantasy easier to believe.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, They keep the system because the British are reflexive liberals who do what liberals do here: they deflect blame. They believe that the reason these problems arise is the result of mismanagement by evil rogue officials or because of some Tory reform from a decade ago. It's never a reflection of the system itself or the idea of socialized medicine because we all know that works. . . if only it was tried in it's pure form.

It's the same thing here with our liberals. Look at education, which has be 100% dominated by liberals for 50+ years. It's a total mess. How do they defend the system? "It's those conservatives who have denied us money or it's Bush trying to force in a reform upon poor teachers or it's all the fault of a few bad apples." They will never accept that the problem is the idea itself.

Tam said...

I looked it up...it was a portland couple and they won 2.9 million. Another mom was talking about something similar happening to her doctor friend here, so I wonder if the AZ people were inspired by the OR people. Either way, sad and sick.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You will indeed go insane trying to find consistency in any leftist position. And I love your breakdown how they believe in total freedom of certain bodily systems but totally want to control others.

What's even more amazing here is the layers of hypocrisy. First, doctors swear to do no harm. Yet, here they are intentionally allowing the continuance of harm for no other reason than disapproval of the lifestyle. "Oh, you smoke? Then you must live with a bad knee." I wonder where they draw that line? "Sorry, you voted wrong, you shouldn't be allowed that new kidney."

Second, we are told by every liberal everywhere that "quality health care" is a "human right." But apparently "human right" now means privilege which must be approved by liberals. It's the same way they call freedom of speech a human right and then impose speech codes. Etc.

The only way I can see to reconcile these issues is if liberals really don't respect human rights at all except as a PR selling point.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I addressed that in March in greater depth: LINK.

And it absolutely fits with this discussion. These people are flippin' insane!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's amazing how often liberals go back to their roots and try to remake Nazi Germany in little ways.

And then they accuse us of that, yet I still can't find a single instance where conservatives have advocated anything similar. Imagine that!

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, As crazy as it may sound, "wrongful birth" has been a recognized cause of action for a long time now. In this claim, the parents sue the doctor for interfering with their "informed consent" by not informing them of the problems associated with having a child with birth defects (or not diagnosing the defects). Twenty-five states allow this kind of lawsuit.

There is a related cause of action called "wrongful life" in which the child then sues the doctor for the same thing. This was first recognized in California (surprise) in 1982. But most other states and countries have rejected this claim. The German constitution says such claims violate basic human rights.


There are also wrongful conception and wrongful adoption causes of action.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, A quick search of the net reveals at least three verdicts -- $4.5 million, $14 million and $23.5 million. Most likely, however, the recovery was limited to $1 million (the typical extent of the insurance) and then the doctor went into bankruptcy.

This is why Ob-gyns have the highest insurance rates of any doctors.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, This stuff goes on all the time. Ob-gyns are the most sued because they are easy targets. For one thing, it's easy to make mistakes in that field, especially nicked veins and damages nerves. For another, its hard to disprove that something natural wasn't the result of something you did wrong. For another, people are happy when they think they're going to have kids and they make a lot of decisions based on hope about a best-case scenario. When that hope fails and the ugly day-to-day reality arrives, these same people start looking to cast blame. So why not blame the person who could have stopped them from making what they now consider a mistake -- that's actually how most BS causes of actions arise... you never told me I was being stupid.

DUQ said...

And yet this is exactly the system Obama wants to impose on us? This tells me clearly that Obama is about control, not making people's lives better.

T-Rav said...

Ugh. If they want to claim "wrongful birth," then by all means go ahead. But if they win, part of the "victory" should be having their kid taken away, since they of course shouldn't be made to suffer by their burden any longer. Maybe hand the child off to a family that's actually capable of expressing love or something.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Yep. This is exactly what would happen here. Once everyone was on one of the exchanges, they would dictate conditions for getting treatment.

And you are right, controlling healthcare is about power, not happiness. And don't think it wouldn't be long before they started imposing all kinds of things. The AMA has already gone on crusades against things like salt and transfat as well as gun ownership. It will become forced liberalism through extortion.

StanH said...

1. All totalitarianism winds up whether, creeping or sudden, in moralizing eugenics for the good of the whole. The problem is we are all mortals including Barry, and in being such, suffer the same fallible judgments. What they’ve done in Britain, and much of Europe, is replaced one system for another system, both created and administered by men. The great distinction being one holds all of mankind as sacred, the other the state. Since were are discussing Britain, lets us the word of a famous Brit, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." We must repeal Barrycare, or I fear America will suffer the same fate, of Europe.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Honestly, I would bet these people would be happy to give up their kids to the state.

BevfromNYC said...

This is anecdotal of course, but a Polish friend of mine told me this little story of a friend who immigrated to Norway - one of those wonderfully socialist countries that provides everything for all...
Her friend move to Norway with her husband and child. She had a second (or third) child while living in Norway and "the State" came in unannounced to take her child away because they did not think the apartment was big enough for another child, nor did they think they could afford to take care of it. These were not poor people living a slum or shack. They are typical middle class legal immigrants. It took a lot to get their child back and now they are leaving Norway and going back to Poland. To lend an even more interesting perspective, these are people who grew up during the Soviet occupation of Poland.

LawHawkRFD said...

So the rich Brits fly to America for their needed treatment and everyone else is left to his own devices. Where will they go next when we have the same broken-down, medicine-as-the-assembly-line care that they have? Wherever the left gets control, disaster follows.

T-Rav said...

Of all the places in Europe, I think Scandinavia is screwed up worse than anyone else, even the British or Dutch. I read stuff out of Sweden on a regular basis that's just...well, grotesque. I can't imagine Norway's any better (even if it does have lovely fjords).

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That's exactly right. And the reason democracy and freedom are so important is because human nature eventually causes people to abuse power. So the less power the system affords, the safer everyone is.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not. These happy socialist countries really have gone off the deep end when it comes to controlling their populations. Eugenics is all the rage again with abortion to chose traits and genders, genetic manipulation to "improve kids," and euthanasia to weed out the no-longer-wanted.

It's pretty sickening actually.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, They will go the Middle East where countries like Dubai are setting up medical tourism with these lavish hospitals.

Now think about that. The idea is to make everyone equal, yet only the rich will be able to get everything they want and need and the rest will need to learn to do as they are told if they want necessary treatments.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I'm honestly shocked what is going on in Scandinavia. They've created a country of true sheep who will do anything they are told without complaint. And they've completely lost any sense of right and wrong, moral or immoral.

Doc Whoa said...

I hate to say it, but I'm not surprised. This is inevitable when you give judgmental people power and liberals are very judgmental. It will move to all but the most emergency-of-emergency care and then they will expand the list of forbidden behaviors -- expressing hateful thoughts, owning a gun, misusing your money, teaching your kids the wrong things.

Doc Whoa said...

Bev & Tam, I wonder if we can sue Obama's doctor for wrongful birth?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, That's exactly right. This is just the beginning of the process. They will expand the types of care from which people can be banned and then they will expand the reasons people can be banned... that's how it always works.

LOL! I love the idea of suing Obama's doctor for wrongful birth!

tryanmax said...

Bev, I was about to read the article, but the first sentence of the introduction was all I needed to understand whatever may follow.

Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion.

If this is the premise upon which the paper is founded, then there really is no discussion to be had. It is the premise itself which must be challenged. Beyond that, this is merely what those of us opposed to abortion cautioned against all along: if we can justify the killing of the unborn, why not the newborn? And so on.

Now, here we are.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, The left is routinely baffled that anyone would vote against "what's good for them" (a la gov't healthcare). So it's a realistic outcome that medical privation would be attached to how people vote. I can argue for it in just one sentence: "You voted against healthcare, so obviously you don't want it."

Of course, in typical leftist fashion, such an argument must ignore specifics and alternatives; the leftist does not truly believe in choice. There is only one healthcare and it is administered by the government. Even now when such is not the case they already believe it. In the leftist mind, addressing people's medical needs via the private system is akin to denying them of medical care.

Perhaps leftist reasoning won't drive me mad, after all. It has a maniacal sanity to it once you drive out those pesky options.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's just an excuse. The argument really skips right over that and goes into lala land about how having a child would hinder the mother's happiness. Interestingly, it even claims adoption should not be allowed because losing the child might be bad for the mental health of the mother.... but killing it is ok. It's a very sick theory.

Tam said...

I remember several leftists during the health care debate saying things like "I've never heard people argue so strongly for no health care." Dumbasses! We aren't against health chare, we are against totalitarianism! We are IN FAVOR of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY! And, by the way, it isn't even about health care-it is about health care COVERAGE. End frivolous lawsuits, use a la carte coverage. I bet the cost would go down dramatically!

And, I'm all in favor of suing Dear Leader's doctor for wrongful birth. Does that contradict what I said earlier about lawsuits?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, There are certain rules to leftist thinking, but they aren't rules anyone would admit. Largely, you have to look at negative human emotions: greed, sloth, envy, spite, self-righteousness. Those fuel leftist thinking.

They want things they have not earned, but they don't want to share.

They hate those who would deny them their desires.

They envy those who have. And they want it taken away, even if they can't personally get it because they want those who have more than they do brought down.

And they want to see themselves as special -- as morally superior to all others.

Those are the behaviors that explain so much of what the left thinks and does.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Nope, any suit against Dear Leader is a good one... no matter how frivolous! :)

You're right about the debate. The left kept whining how we were trying to deprive people of healthcare which is total garbage. First, everyone in this country is entitled by law to emergency care. And anyone who wants more can buy insurance or pay for it -- not to mention that most hospitals offer free care for the poor.

What we were upset about was not that some people would get coverage, we were upset that they were trying to take coverage from everyone and force everyone into this government system where the quality of care would crash and where people like the doctors mentioned in this article could then decide if you deserve care.

Ed said...

Tam, There's no such thing as a wrong lawsuit against Obama! :D

Ed said...

The abortion article is despicable, but it really fits with the way the abortion lobby thinks: kids are an annoyance and a hinderance to women. Twisted f**ks.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, It is the logical extension of the pro-abortion position that abortion is about restricting the economic success of women.

T-Rav said...

Speaking of health care and all, has anyone noticed this weird "Life of Julia" ad the Obama campaign's been putting out? Something about the average woman who will be able to live a wonderful life without hardship thanks to ObamaCare and all the great things it's done, or something. Which would be awesome, if it actually was accomplishing anything.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I haven't seen it, but it sounds like total propaganda -- especially as Obamacare has done nothing for anyone yet except cause problems.

Individualist said...

Liberty to a liberal is your right to do what they tell you to do......

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Isn't that the truth: freedom is the right to do what is good for you, as defined by us.

Tam said...

Re: Julia and the economy-ha ha ha!
http://rncresearch.tumblr.com/post/22323177871/julia-and-the-obama-economy

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Here's the link. LINK.

So it's the economic boom which has helped poor Julia, huh? I guess she's in the bankruptcy or collection business.

tryanmax said...

Rush went through the Julia slideshow on air today. It sounds like utter nonsense wishful thinking.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I haven't seen the whole presentation, but it sounds like nonsense. But then everything Obama has been saying is nonsense.

tryanmax said...

Here it is, "The Life of Julia" if anybody is interested.

I can't help but not the aesthetic of the presentation and ask, "Which party wants to take us back to the 50s?"

rlaWTX said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/298859/julia-kevin-d-williamson

AndrewPrice said...

Wow! That's really 1950s stuff. It's also obscenely untruthful. Obama really is a total sh*t.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Thanks for the link: LINK

LOLOLOLOL! Now that is a great version of Obama's lousy little story. That is liberalism to a t!

Ed said...

rlaWTX, That is brilliant! Thanks!

tryanmax said...

Kevin D. forgot to include that Julia (granddaughter of the one who makes it to 2022) doesn't receive even a meager inheritance from her grandmother as confiscatory estate taxes claim nearly all of what little Julia was able to cobble away. He also forgets to mention that Julia's death was preventable, except that the IPAB prescribed a pain pill rather than the relatively simple surgery that could have saved her life.

I don't know if anybody else was doing the math on Julia, but her journey doesn't really begin until Obama is well into his fourth term of office. According to the timeline, somehow Obama manages to occupy the White House until the nation's tricentennial which, of course, will not be celebrated because this country is nothing to be proud of. Besides, Barackistan will have only existed for about 60 years by the time Julia retires/dies.

CrispyRice said...

Wow... just wow! That is so horrid. If the doctors want to pick and choose their patients, then go into private practice and take only patients who are willing to pay you. (And just wait to see how many people show up who don't have *something* detrimental you can dig up in their personal habits.) Ugh.

And Bev - wow again!

I heard the Julia thing on Rush, too, and figured you guys had it covered. ;)

I keep thinking, as he always jokes, Rush will tell us when it's time to move to Singapore. Rush will tell us...

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I noticed that too, that Julia's life doesn't actually seem to have much to do with Obama. He's kind of acting like if his ideas had been put into place decades ago and were working perfectly. It's a very strange video. It's also full of crap, but there's nothing new about that!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, It's pretty amazing isn't it? But this is what liberals do -- they discover new ways to force their will upon people.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Wait, this from the same NHS where patients die due to lack of water?
And the incidents of that and other lack of basic care is, no doubt, underreported (just like the crime rates).

IRT the Julia crap: notice they have to use a make believe person.
Next they'll be saying it's based on Moochelle Obama's life. Fake but accurate.

Post a Comment