Don’t Treat the Old and Unhealthy, Say Doctors
From the desk of Fjordman on Sun, 2008-01-27 23:32
This happens at the same time as our countries are flooded with illegal immigrants at an accelerating pace. We give immigrants money through high taxes and welfare goodies and thus fund our own colonization, but we let grandma and grandpa die if they get ill because, well, they're so old and their health care costs too much. Welcome to the European welfare state.
A quote from The Daily Telegraph, 26 January 2008:
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone. [...]
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Free?
Submitted by R. Hartman on Mon, 2008-01-28 21:33.
"...the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone."
It's like Dutch politicians defending road-toll stating that people should realize the roads are not for free... We paid those roads 15 times over already. Same with healthcare. While tose people wer productive, they paid a lot into the tax and social system, and they're probably paying still, out of their private pensions.
As Fjordman says, we importing inbread colonists that have raised the cost of healthcare and have all sorts of demands on how they should be treated, funds for which were raised by those elderly, amongst others. And now they need care themselves it's being denied since "they cannot be treated for free". They've outlived their usefulness.
Only goes to show that the real doctors were chased out of the UK by exorbitant taxes, and what's left is an immoral bunch.
evolution
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-01-28 14:41.
Get rid of the old ones, make place for new ones? It's brutal, but it is a serious question for our socially hollow countries, where 'old ones' are pushed to a place far off the family bounds. I hope fjordman is personally caring his old ones in his house, or not?
point of no return
Submitted by BollekeBoy on Mon, 2008-01-28 02:47.
As I commented in another article, socialized health care is the point of no return. Once a population gets used to it, there is no turning back no matter how bad it gets. It turns free born citizens into junkies with government handouts taking the place of drugs.
Socialized medicine laid bare
Submitted by onecent on Mon, 2008-01-28 02:20.
Socialized medicine laid bare, it can ration the care any way it chooses. No surprise. Since Europe has an aging population, how convenient to start removing the elderly from healthcare, the ones with bad habits at first, then, the whole demographic. Of course, denying benefits to the horde of younger immigrants, sitting on the dole in large numbers, would be out of the question.
The Brits deserve their fate if they don't throw Labour out and start reversing the rot.
Health Care Rationing
Submitted by Frank Lee on Mon, 2008-01-28 02:08.
This is precisely what the politicians in America do not talk about, even when presenting their obligatory national health care proposals: there will always be rationing of some kind when it comes to health care. For now, the market rations the care to people who buy health insurance. Under a national health care system, the rationing might cut out the elderly, the fat, smokers, and so on. I'm not completely opposed to cutting down on some of the wasteful care given to the terminally ill; I'm referring, for example, to cancer treatments that greatly reduce the quality of life for people whose cancer is not actually treatable. But Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, et alia don't even admit this is an issue. Their programs will likely go nowhere for this reason. Maybe they aren't serious about their proposals anyway.