Posted by Daniel Greenfield on January 29, 2007 @ the Sultan Knishblog 7 Comments
There's always a price for everything or as they say in certain circles,
TANSTAAFL, or There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Politicians though
increasingly build their promises on a government bureaucracy that will give
you a free lunch. Of course the government bureaucracy isn't free and there's a
hell of a tab to pick up for the lunch too.
The problem with offering pie in the sky though is someone has to pay for it.
Medicine is justifiably a human right, but when doled out by the government
comes packaged with a massive bureaucracy to implement and distribute and
manage it. While the governments promised a lot, reality interferes naturally.
Drugs and doctors don't grow on trees.
Socialized medicine may give away a lot, but it has to stagger carefully what
it gives away and lower the quality. Americans may go to Canada for cheap drugs
but Canadians will go to America because America offers the procedures they
need, without having to wait months for them. Wards in England are a national
disgrace and a nightmare with nursing shortages, mixed sex wards and severe
cleanliness problems. France's broken health care system is climbing the ranks
of election campaign issues.
For parts of the 19th and most of the 20th century, civic medicine has made
great strides. Health care and hygiene came to the slums, diseases were fought
and conquered. Much of what was accomplished was toted up as yet further
evidence that government programs when applied to social problems could create
an ideal society.
As social prosperity increased, lifespans increased and birth rates fell. In
America they fell somewhat, in Europe they fell drastically. So drastically
that Europe from the English coastlines to the Russian tundra is facing the
loss of millions of people and the depopulation of entire areas. This would
have been a severe enough problems in and of itself, but a system in which
younger worker's pay is leveraged to provide social services for them and for
retired citizens cannot survive a gap in the birth rate any more than you can
build a building with a missing two stories in the middle.
Immigration was meant to make up for that but of course immigration only makes
things worse. On paper immigration seems like an easy way to make up for a
birth rate shortfall. But immigration is not some sort of clone factory
stamping out fresh new young workers to take their places at the desks and
counters of tomorrow. Immigration meant importing entire families, often in
three generations, from the third world, most with health care needs vastly
outweighing those of the natives. And then there are the social problems.
Using immigration as a stopgap solution for the birth rate was a lot like a
thirsty man at sea drinking salt water. It made things a good deal worse and
placed massive stresses on socialism's free lunch pail. This wasn't so much a
problem for the government bureaucracies though as for the nation's citizens.
The bureaucracies were perfectly happy with the infusion of third worlders as
it meant more jobs for them and expansions of their programs. The bonus crime, diseases and social unrest was manna
from heaven for them. The worse things got, the more funding they could demand
for their departments.
For the Western nations as a whole though it was a horrific disaster that
undermined their social fabrics, created war zones in formerly peaceful small
towns and of course gave them a whopping huge bill for the whole thing.
But still the squeeze was on and immigration only made it worse. You could
squeeze it by cutting off social services for deadbeat immigrants, at least for
the illegal ones, but no municipality in Europe and America would hear of that.
It's not only racist but it's equivalent to taking away a farmer's milk cows
just when he expects years of use from them.
That leaves squeezing the elderly and the disabled through euthanasia. And
that's exactly the situation where disabled patients in England sue to not be
disconnected from life support and are denied. Euthanasia is declared to be a
human right, but it is not only applied to those who actively wish to die, but
to those whom the bureaucracy decides should die.
The resource shortfall has to be made up from somewhere and the elderly are no
more use to anyone as far as the bureaucracy is concerned and there is a whole
lot of them about. As immigration further strains the health care system,
choices are made. Alfred has to die, so Mahmood can get treated for three
diseases that had formerly been eradicated in the Western world.
It's not only Europe. It's America too. A family friend recently passed away in
no small part because the hospital he was in decided he should die. His feeding
tube was disconnected and not reconnected for days despite pleas for his wife.
Doctors pressured her repeatedly to disconnect him from life support and would
not respond to her questions about his condition. She stayed by his bedside but
in the end they got what they wanted.
Another acquittance some years back found that her uncle had been disconnected
from life support without her authorization leading to his death. When she
demanded answers, she was told, "He lived his life."
He lived his life, is the epitaph of a lot of elderly men and women dying under
socialized medicine or perhaps being outright murdered. Eugenics today is a
dirty word, but the distinction between eugenics as practiced by the Germans or
practiced under socialism today, is the definition of "Life Unworthy of
Life." The Germans applied it to the mentally ill, the disabled and a
variety of categories including the Jews. Today it's often applied to the
disabled, babies and the elderly, whose "Quality of Life", a euphemism
that could proudly be translated into the German, is measured, found wanting
and disposed of.
Peter Singer, one of the moral and ethical authorities of modern medicine,
Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the
Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, has
endorsed killing disabled newborns and mentally disabled elderly. Singer isn't
some obscure crank, he's the leading inspiration of the animal rights movement.
Singer premises the right to life on "the ability to plan and anticipate
one's future." In a bureaucracy of course no one has much ability to plan
and anticipate one's future and accordingly have no right to live. Like Nazi
eugenics, such selection targets the weakest and most vulnerable people in a
society by the government.
The most common reasons for disapproving of eugenics have been racial, rather
than the moral argument that murder is simply wrong. Modern eugenics instead of
targeting racial minorities, targets the weakest people on behalf of
minorities. The selection is made to prioritize social services for third world
immigrants, over the nation's own disabled and elderly citizens. The resource
gaps created by socialized medicine have to be balanced and the scales weighed.
Alfred must die, so Mahmood may live.
Post a Comment