Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Government Grow-op Shut Down | Main | Max Keiser on Goldman Sachs, Gold, and the Recession »

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

More British Files

Loyal readers know that I tend to post mostly British stories lately. I do this for the ominous and omen-esque implications for us on this side of the Atlantic. After all if the land of Locke can succumb to Leviathan, is there hope for us? There may be if we wake up and resist the path they have taken.

Two more examples: 1. The National Health Service (NHS) bascially chooses who lives and who dies. Our system does the same, but at least (until now and who knows what will happen if Obamacare comes in) we could escape south and do something. Example: a 22 year-old who needed a liver transplant (and he admits it was his fault for too much drinking) was denied a new liver and died. It should be noted that the famous soccer player George Best who also wasted his liver did receive one. So once the state takes over, it all becomes a matter of who Leviathan's favorite is.

2. The police in the UK have now been given Chinese-like powers to enter anyone's home and tear down anti-Olympic signs.

Posted by Moin A Yahya on July 21, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

It must be said that liver transplants pose a tricky ethical question no matter what kind of health care system is in place. There are always more people who need them than there are donors available. Given that, it seems a reasonable solution to save them for people who will benefit most: young people who are not alcoholics. This is a decision that would still have to be made even in an entirely privatized health system. Indeed, it seems likely that the boy's fate would sadly have been the same under such a system. There are good arguments for increased private provision of health care in the UK and Canada, but this is not one of them.

Posted by: Malcolm Lavoie | 2009-07-21 7:18:16 PM


Example 1: "So once the state takes over, it all becomes a matter of who Leviathan's favorite is."

Not exactly. The article tells us that "National guidelines dictate that to qualify for a donor organ, a potential recipient must prove he has the determination to stop drinking by remaining abstinent for six months." You might not like that standard, but it at least has the virtue of not being based on favouritism. (NB: If you want to cover British stories on a Canadian website, you could at least include the "u".) George Best met this criterion. Gary Reinbach did not. The decisions in both cases were made on objective policy, not who is more liked.

It's also worth noting that in an insurance system, it happens more often than supporters like to admit that treatment is denied by insurers who find lots of "reasons" to deny coverage to their expensive clients. So in an insurance system, there is no reason to think Gary Reinbach would have fared any better.


Example 2: I don't live in the UK and don't oppose London hosting the games, but this news story makes me want to move there and join the protests just to challenge this evil law. From the article: "Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a Government who just doesn't understand civil liberties. They may claim these powers won't be used but the frank truth is no one will believe them.'" Indeed!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-21 7:50:20 PM


No surprises here. All socialized medicine plans eventually devolve into a triage based system. The rationing of care and impenetrable bureaucracy ensue. The fact is once the last remnants of health care have been seized by the state, the control over people's lives doesn't stop. Taxation on alcohol, cigs, junk food, cereals, bars and restaurants being strongarmed.

The lack of accountability for one's own health leads to complacency. There's no finer example than the British public where obesity, diabetes, drinking, smoking, and STDs are at an all time high.

Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-07-21 8:10:05 PM


Malcom, I would say this is perfect example of why we should seprate health care and the state. You used the word donor. That is the problem right there. If we could will a sum of money to our estate upon our death for our organs, I bet there would be a lot fewer people on the waiting list!

Of course getting paid for your organs may not seem right to some people but how can it be worse than letting people die?

Posted by: TM | 2009-07-21 8:16:55 PM


Loyal readers know that I tend to post mostly British stories lately.
Posted by Moin A Yahya on July 21, 2009

You might have a bit more credibility if everything you posted didn't originate from the Daily Mail. People read the Daily Mail for the snippets / pictures about Kerry Katona, Katie Price, Victoria Beckham, etc. and to get the footy results. It caters to the chavs. As a seroius newspaper it's on the same footing as the National Enquirer.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-21 8:44:55 PM


Ok so the kid basically killed himself...booze will do that.

What about the unbelievable police powers mentioned? That's disgusting in a "The Gestapo are disgusting" kind of way. Notice they pretty much disarmed the English before all the cameras and police power?
And as an aside...Harper voted FOR gun control...pay attention folks, the show is starting to get really interesting.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-21 8:45:28 PM


So once the state takes over, it all becomes a matter of who Leviathan's favorite is.
Posted by Moin A Yahya on July 21, 2009

There are 5000 - 6000 liver transplants every year in the US. About 17,000 people in the US are waiting for transplants. What decides who should get a transplant in the US, the size of their bank account?

Example: a 22 year-old who needed a liver transplant (and he admits it was his fault for too much drinking) was denied a new liver and died. It should be noted that the famous soccer player George Best who also wasted his liver did receive one.
Posted by Moin A Yahya on July 21, 2009

Ever heard of Mickey Mantle?

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-21 9:38:29 PM


Stig- How about Larry Hagman, David Crosby, Steve Jobs, Walter Payton? Every one of them had substance abuse issues, and every one of them had the money to jump the queue.

Posted by: dp | 2009-07-21 10:13:52 PM


Malcolm in any truly privatized system the family of a deceased person would be paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for their good organs.

Of course had there been a massive overabundance of proper kidneys the NHS would still let a number of them die, simply because it doesn't want to pay for their operations.

In a private system the customer would pay a large portion of that through private insurance and through a Medical Savings Account and whatnot.
He would not have to die needlessly to save some bureaucrat numbers on a budget line item.

So he did not die for lack of kidneys, there would always be enough kidneys if they wanted them. The real secret is that here and there the bureaucrats simply do not want the kidneys to be available.

Posted by: GeronL | 2009-07-22 1:23:00 AM


Did anyone else catch the part of this thread where the UK Gestapo is kicking in doors to take "signs" from people?
Debating socialized health care is fun but we already know it doesn't work all that well.
I'm more concerned with the Nazi like police powers being used in a once free country.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 6:28:19 AM


Did anyone else catch the part of this thread where the UK Gestapo is kicking in doors to take "signs" from people?
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 6:28:19 AM

The law was passed to protect commercial interests at the request of the IOC and the London Olympic organizers. It only applies to signage which is posted 3 hundred metres from an olympic event. It doesn't give the police the right to enter "anyones" home and remove signs.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 9:22:49 AM


Stig, whether or not the police have the right or not, some feel justified in doing what they want

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-22 2:06:52 PM


Bull!

"The powers were introduced by the Olympics Act of 2006, passed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, supposedly to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers on the London 2012 site.
They would allow advertising posters or hoardings placed in shop or home to be removed.

But the law has been drawn so widely that it also includes 'non-commercial material' - which could extend its reach to include legitimate campaign literature.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a Government who just doesn't understand civil liberties. They may claim these powers won't be used but the frank truth is no one will believe them."

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 2:54:15 PM


The law was passed to protect commercial interests at the request of the IOC and the London Olympic organizers.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 9:22:49 AM

Doesn't that hit you as being an authoritarian law Stig? "To protect commercial interests"? Its wrong on so many levels the mind boggles.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 3:33:49 PM


Doesn't that hit you as being an authoritarian law Stig? "To protect commercial interests"? Its wrong on so many levels the mind boggles.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 3:33:49 PM

Not when "exclusive" marketing rights have been sold it doesn't. Much the same thing is going on in Vancouver.

"VANOC is legally obligated to the IOC and to its marketing partners to protect against unauthorized use of the Olympic Brand and ambush marketing in Canada."

http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/about-vanoc/the-vancouver-2010-brand/protecting-the-brand/-/32798/1i3nwix/index.html

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 5:08:15 PM


unauthorized use of the Olympic Brand and ambush marketing in Canada."


That I can understand. I can't help but wonder though, why everyone is so upset over there if its just that simple. It can't be written that specifically would be my guess.
Oh well, we have our own problems.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 5:37:09 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.