It’s always interesting when we turn over the rock that is socialized medicine and watch all the bugs squirm out of the light. Today’s installment is from Great Britain where Baroness Warnocks declared that those suffering dementia have a duty to die because they suck up too many resources.
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves.
Perhaps Nicholas Provenzo will write another stirring column on the morality of killing inconvenient people. After all, according to Provenzo, killing Downs Syndrome babies is the moral thing to do because they are only “marginally productive” and wind up being a burden to family and society.
I am not the first to note that the downside of socialized medicine–aside from the outrageously long waits for procedures and the lack of motivation for innovation–is that somebody must get less care so that somebody else can get more care.
When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.
Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.
We’ve heard about this obligation of the sick and the elderly to off themselves so that the healthy can live better before. It’s similar to Provenzo’s argument justifying aborting Downs Syndrome babies. And it’s still barbaric.
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
Great post! In addition to everything you’ve stated, I wonder about the insurance company and trial lawyer aspect regarding the issue of malpractice. I’d imagine government ran health care would be a windfall for them, with the taxpayers getting stuck paying for every phony suit they could muster. I can envision a judicial nightmare.
Perhaps Nicholas Provenzo will write another stirring column on the morality of killing inconvenient people. After all, according to Provenzo, killing Downs Syndrome babies is the moral thing to do because they are only “marginally productive” and wind up being a burden to family and society.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Infant mortality rates (death/1000 live births):
Sweden 3.2
Germany 4.3
France 4.2
United Kingdom 4.8
United States 6.3
Under 5 mortality rates (deaths/1000 live births)
Sweden 4.0
Germany 5.4
France 5.2
United Kingdom 6.0
United States 7.8
It’s interesting to note that conservatives will use opinion by one pundit about theoretical deaths of Downs Syndrome babies, and ignore the actual death rates occuring in the real world. The US system of medicine kills American children unnecessarily now.
(And the countries listed use WHO definitions of live births, to head off the usual bullshit)
Pho, how do your statistics relate to the post?
Which part of “The US system of medicine kills American children unnecessarily now” do you have problems understanding?
What part of “the post isn’t about your bashing the American system” don’t you understand?
Stay on topic, Pho.
What part of “the post isn’t about your bashing the American system” don’t you understand?
Cite, please.
To recap for the hard-of-thinking:
Sharon writes a post about how evl socialised medicine is because a couple of pundits talk abstractly about euthanasia and putting down Downs Syndroms children.
I point out, with statistics, that the current American system, now, lets children die unnecessarily.
Sharon either ignores this or is too stupid to get the point. If socialised medicine is evil because of people musing about euthanasia, what do you call a system that is killing actual kids now?
Yes, Pho, by all means, mischaracterize what you can’t explain.
This post is one of dozens we’ve written about various officials inside the NHS who have discussed cutting off services to people because socialized medicine cannot afford to pay for them. It’s too bad you can’t defend this practice.
Not only that, but the article by Provenzo is not a defense of socialized medicine, but simply the opinion of an academic–once reiterated on countless sites, such as Pandagon–that killing inconvenient children, such as Downs Syndrome babies, is perfectly moral because they become a burden to society.
Now, if you can defend that position, go for it. But your conclusion that the American system “is killing kids,” as in, has as its goal to kill children–which was the point of the article (purposely killing the elderly is beneficial)–is both ridiculous and off-topic.
Phoe, you have assumed that it is our system of medical care that causes a higher infant mortality rate. I’d suggest that the difference is almost entirely cultural, in that the black infant mortality rate is much higher than that for whites. This article notes that it isn’t race per se:
Something in the sub-culture among American blacks is contributing to much higher risks across the board: infant mortality, early childhood deaths, higher educational drop-out rates, higher violent crime rates, higher incarceration rates and lowered life expectancy.
Phoe, you have assumed that it is our system of medical care that causes a higher infant mortality rate. I’d suggest that the difference is almost entirely cultural, in that the black infant mortality rate is much higher than that for whites.
I’d suggest you’re statistically illiterate.
Consider – the piece states “the black infant mortality rate is twice the white infant mortality rate”. Blacks make up 12% of the US population.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation easily shows that, if blacks had the infant mortality rate as whites, you would expect this to reduce the US rate from 6.3 and 7.8 per thousand to 5.6 and 7.0 respectively – still considerably higher than other Western countries.
As always, the ability of wingnuts to make shit up to explain the failure of their positions regardless of simple reality never ceases to amaze me.
We will also note that either you believe that blacks are not Americans, or that you believe the question of black access to health care is entirely a “cultural” matter.
But your conclusion that the American system “is killing kids,” as in, has as its goal to kill children
My conclusion is that the American system is killing children. Its goal is corporate profits; its practice is to obtain them at the cost of children’s lives.
Sorry, Pho, your argument doesn’t even compare to people actively killing people because the cost is too high. Why not discuss the topic of the post, instead of whatever tangent you think serves a better purpose? Can’t argue with it?
Better leave your rants for your blog.
Sorry, Pho, your argument doesn’t even compare to people actively killing people because the cost is too high.
Except, of course, Sharon, that your post didn’t discuss people actively killing people. It discussed a couple of pundits waffling on, and attempted to use this to indict “socialised medicine”.
Deal with the fact – the US system of health care kills more kids than the “socialised” systems in other comparable nations.
Pho, you need to dealwith the facts. No one in the U.S. discusses killing people because they are inconvenient and cost the taxpayers too much. Yet there are multiple examples of these discussions in countries with socialized medicine. On top of that, there are plenty of examples–such as my grandfather–told that there was no more money to be spent on them. That doesn’t happen here, Pho.
Address the post, Pho. Leave your rants for your own blog.
Pho, you need to dealwith the facts. No one in the U.S. discusses killing people because they are inconvenient and cost the taxpayers too much.
Alas, they do. Or, more accurately, they discuss letting them die.
Yet there are multiple examples of these discussions in countries with socialized medicine.
Uh-huh. And this is the meat of your indictment against socialised medicine?
On top of that, there are plenty of examples–such as my grandfather–told that there was no more money to be spent on them. That doesn’t happen here, Pho.
Which country are you posting from, precisely, because you seem to be posting from one which doesn’t have American health insurance?
Address the post, Pho. Leave your rants for your own blog.
You post, Sharon, is rubbish. You took the opinion of two people and tried to use it as a means to indict a system. I am pointing out that that system delivers better results than your system.
Pho, you need to dealwith the facts. No one in the U.S. discusses killing people because they are inconvenient and cost the taxpayers too much.
Alas, they do. Or, more accurately, they discuss letting them die. See, to name but one example, California Proposition 187.
Yet there are multiple examples of these discussions in countries with socialized medicine.
Uh-huh. And this is the meat of your indictment against socialised medicine?
On top of that, there are plenty of examples–such as my grandfather–told that there was no more money to be spent on them. That doesn’t happen here, Pho.
Which country are you posting from, precisely, because you seem to be posting from one which doesn’t have American health insurance?
Address the post, Pho. Leave your rants for your own blog.
You post, Sharon, is rubbish. You took the opinion of two people and tried to use it as a means to indict a system. I am pointing out that that system delivers better results than your system.
Alas, they do. Or, more accurately, they discuss letting them die.
No, Pho. They don’t. Every person in the U.S.can get care if they go to get it. Anyone can walk into an E.R. and get care, regardless of ability to pay. More to the point, you can get whatever care you choose in the U.S. system. No one is going to tell you you can’t get certain drugs or procedures if you want to pay for them.
That’s not true in the world of socialized medicine, Pho, and you are just lying when you try to pretend that infant mortality rates tell the story.
It’s not like we haven’t provided multiple examples of the problems with the NHS, from their euthanasia stances to their abortion stances to their non-use of the newest cancer drugs to their practice of making people wait in ambulances in the E.R. parking lots. We’ve posted stories of women who had to have their children at home because the hospitals told them to leave. I’ve given you anecdotal evidence of relatives who have had to wait years for procedures because of the waiting lists socialized medicine causes. I’ve presented people who were told to go home to die because the government decided they had spent enough money caring for them and the money should go somewhere else.
Those things don’t happen in the U.S., Pho. You think you know oh, so much about our system when you don’t know shit. People go to the E.R. for birth control pills, Pho, because they just go to the E.R. for everything rather than getting a doctor’s appointment. And guess what? They get treated!
Unlike under socialized medicine, where you will get the care the government decides is appropriate for you, not the care you want or are willing to pay for.
And no, socialized medicine does not, in fact, deliver better results. In the U.S., we didn’t invent the “surgery holiday” because we don’t have to fly halfway around the world to get medical procedures done.
You think you know oh, so much about our system when you don’t know shit.
I read the WHO reports comparing countries.
Do you?
I’ve read not only the WHO report, but dozens of articles on the way socialized medicine is being practiced. I also have talked to many people who have had to use socialized medicine.
I couple that with my own information about the U.S. health system, from the point of view of patient as well as provider.
As one person has said, “Yeah, socialized medicine is great until you need it.”
Perhaps the kids who are enthusiastic for the trendy Obama might find Soylent Green to their taste. Inheritances might come faster but after the taxman takes his cut, it might not be such a good deal.
I’ve read not only the WHO report,
What’s its title, then?
Stop being a troll, Pho. Either discuss the topic of the post or leave.
You haven’t read the report, have you?
To repeat: you took the opinion of two people and tried to use it as a means to indict a system. I am pointing out that that system delivers better results than your system.
That is discussing the post. To be more exact, it’s pointing out that you’re talking cobblers.
I did not take the word of two people to “indict a system.” We’ve had a dozen posts that indict the system. This is simply the latest example. You, OTOH, are cherry-picking for argument’s sake.
The results you describe have nothing to do with arguments about the morality of killing Downs Syndrome babies or euthanizing elderly dementia sufferers.
In other words, it’s just trolling, pure and simple.