…I despise the concept of society and collectivism.
Patients who have had a ‘fair innings’ could be denied life-saving drugs under proposed health reforms.
The plans would mean experts taking into account whether there is a ‘wider societal benefit’ to giving a patient crucial medicines.
The NHS rationing body, Nice, fears the Department of Health proposals could see younger people deemed a higher priority for drug treatments because they have more years ahead of them – potentially contributing more to the economy – than the elderly.
It is difficult to find words that adequately express the horror I experience when I come across these evil people. We are not drones in a collective; we are individuals. We are not there to provide “societal benefit”. Fuck society. Fuck the collective. Both consist of individuals and the individual is more important than both. I for one am not on Earth to “contribute to the economy”. If I do, all well and good. if not, then too bad. My interactions with others are on the basis of mutual benefit. I have no interest in society – and I eschew the collective, for I absolutely abhor the concept of the common good for there lies the road to totalitarianism. The evil we faced in the twentieth century has not gone away, it has merely lain dormant and has resurfaced in socialised healthcare where our lifestyle choices are held against us and our taxes are taken from us and used to harangue, hector and bully us over what we imbibe and how we live our lives. If ever there was an argument that the NHS should go, this is it.
Doctors, MPs and campaigners last night condemned the plans as ‘barking mad’.
That’s the polite way of putting it. Every individual should be treated as such and their treatment and medication should be based upon their clinical needs, not some spurious Marxist measurement of their worth to fucking society. Fuck society. Oh, I said that already. Well, fuck society. There, said it again.
H/T Quiet Man.
I find the concept of “societal benefit” somewhat interesting, because if that really is the way we’re going to assess whether people live or die going forward then (using that logic) presumably any “chav” or unemployable person should be euthanased in future to save society from a debit on the accounts.
And of course, all those who do not contribute to the economy at all… such as government and the entire public sector.
I wonder if they’ve noticed yet that everything they do has always, and will always, backfire?
Fuck me, Mrs Judd is on the money again.
For years she’s been saying ”one day babies will be ‘chipped at birth’ and when they outlive their usefulness and become old, or don’t tow the party line, or get seriously ill, or are basically no longer financially viable/of use, the controllers will just turn the chip off…finito, off, thats it, dead.”
Well she meant it metaphorically (maybe not), but here they are in all their glory, confirming that they really are the bastards that she’s always said they are, though even she’s quite surprised that they’ve announced their vision of their utopia quite so soon.
1984?
I wonder if the echoes of screams from the gas chambers ever haunt the minds of those who dream this crap up, do they descend from the swine who dreamed of that solution.
They can take their demi-God wet dream and shove it right up their collective arses.
Regards
Judd
“1984?”
Try Logan’s Run…..
Yes, Logan’s Run is more accurate.
It is a bit odd that you are becoming aware . What did you think all the chat about “an ageing society” was about.
If you add this to “from each according to his ability” -you end up with a practical society. – Valuable politicians and bureaucrats prserved ad lib to watch over and utilise the rest. that is you.
I’ve been aware for a long time. What is new is that they are becoming more brazen.
Not even “a good innings”, either
I do find it odd that the medical establishment will do all that is necessary to keep people alive, even intervening in ‘lifestyle’ choices (including restricting smoking, reducing drinking and wearing seat belts) then to suggest that there should be some limit to support for older people.
I guess there has to be some limit to what healthcare is provided to all patients as there is a cost implication to treating all sorts of things. Although a quick scan of http://www.nice.org.uk/ does not find anything that backs up the newspaper article, so I suspect that the piece has been twisted somewhat from a comment about something else.
It is the Mail, so possibly. NICE however are apparently not in favour.
Perhaps I’m being cynical but maybe it’s because younger people still slave away to feed the tax monster whereas the old generally no longer perform “productive” work in the eyes of the government. Work until you drop then we’ll melt you down and trade you in, or something to that effect. Nice it most certainly is not.
If old people were allowed to withdraw all their unused NHS NI contributions to date and invest them in private healthcare, perhaps this would be acceptable (and I’m sure a booming market would ensue), but otherwise it’s totally unacceptable. Any limitations on terms of care (even in extreme cases) are surely not valid unless this was disclosed in a contract initially signed-up to by the patient and they were given the choice of whether or not to pay into the NHS? Nobody was ever informed thus or offered the choice.
It should be quite straightforward: if you have been forced to pay into the system (i.e. NI contributions) then you are fully entitled to any available NHS treatment, regardless of your age, state of health, lifestyle or anything else.
Of course there should be two caveats:
1. The individual should be free to refuse or accept treatment as they see fit.
2. There should be an “opt out” whereby an individual can stop paying in and recoup all previous contributions, except for any proportion already spent on previous treatment. The same should apply to the state pension. Perhaps any subsequent “opting in” again could be accompanied by an insurance-style “excess” which is reduced every year, in order to prevent people not paying in but then subsequently rejoining the scheme when they needed treatment.
The second one of these becomes an ever more pressing need now the NHS is actively considering, and in some places implementing, discriminatory treatment policies.
The NHS ought to, on request, be able to provide patients with a full list of their contributions to date and treatment costs – somehow I doubt this is possible (or if it is, they will claim it is not). Similarly, patients should be in full control of their own medical records including having the ability to destroy the lot if they so desire.
I am certain that this idea is not new. Infaqct,I think it was in useabout 70 years ago at a railway station in Poland, where people alighting from the train were allocated to the right or the left by men in Nazi uniforms, based on their perceived ability to provide benefit tosociety.