when the status quo frustrates.

Sarah Palin Smokes Some Weed, Hallucinates Plot By Dems To Euthanize Trig

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Here she goes!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

I agree, Thomas Sowell has sort of said that, along with a lot of other crap that clearly lodged itself in Sarah’s one brain cell and is responsible for the above stoned-sounding babble. To quote his crap more precisely:

The government does not have some magic wand that can “bring down the cost of health care.” It can buy a smaller quantity or lower quality of medical care, as other countries with government-run medical care do.

It can decide not to spend as much money on the elderly as is being spent now. That can save a lot of money — if you think having a parent die earlier is a bargain.

The idea of a “duty to die” has been making some headway in recent years around the fringes of the left. It is perfectly consistent with the fundamental notion of the left, that decisions should be transferred from ordinary citizens to government elites.

To briefly address his rather astonishing claim that all other countries with government-run medical care offer either less medical care or lower quality medical care–and what metrics are we using to make this sweeping statement, one can’t help but wonder? According to the WHO, in 2000, although the U.S. spent a higher portion of its gross domestic product on its health care system than any other member country, it ranked 37 out of the 191 countries in terms of actual performance. The WHO used not just one but five performance metrics to determine its rankings:

1. overall level of population health;
2. health inequalities (or disparities) within the population;
3. overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts);
4. distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);
5. and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

One could hardly accuse the WHO of underanalyzing the situation–frankly, I suspect Sowell and Palin and the other loud objectors would consider this list far too comprehensive–after all, what do they care about no. 4? And the selfish hysteria they display in regards to no. 5 is pretty pathetic–

But aside from that, it’s the euthanasia contention that really interests me here. Specifically, what really interests me is the lovely portrait both the Palinator and Thomas Sowell appear to be painting of our current private health insurance system, where apparently everyone who has private health insurance finds that all their health care decisions, including end-of-life care, are made by the individual in concert with his loving doctor, with no other outside cost-based interference at all.

For a quick anecdotal reminder that, erm, this isn’t QUITE EXACTLY the case–I can’t be the only woman who gave birth in the early to mid-1990′s, right? And I know I’m not the only woman who got kicked out of the hospital less than 24 hours after giving birth, because the majority (if not all) of health insurance plans instituted a policy of flatly refusing to pay for longer than that, regardless of the fact that the standard postpartum stay recommended by physicians was 48-72 hours. In 1996, the federal government ended up passing legislation requiring health insurance companies to pay for a minimum of 48 hours, after the postpartum complication rate for both women and newborns abruptly began to soar. Oops!

For a less anecdotal statement of fact as to why that contention is total bullshit, save me some time. For those of you who have health insurance from a non-government source, please go look at your policy. I mean really look at it, not just skim over the co-pay and how much you have to fork out a month for you, you + 1 or you + 2 or more–read the whole damn policy. And tell me what care your health insurance company–not you or your doctor–what medical decisions about your care that your health insurance company does not now control already that the government suddenly would.

I think you’ll find that there aren’t any. All you’re doing by switching from private to public, folks, is changing masters–and it’s worth a think or two that you’re changing to a master that you do at least have some elective control over, eh?

(Note to Sarah: To the best of my knowledge, dear, nobody in either the private or the public sector is recommending the euthanization of babies with Down Syndrome. So really, you can relax!)

(via)

UPDATED: More from Salon: “The ‘death panels’ are already here”

UPDATED: Even her fellow Republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from this one.

Sicko

Thursday, June 21st, 2007

Owing to the wonders of P2P leakage, I, like many of you, saw Michael Moore’s Sicko. Like most popular political documentaries (and recent Moore documentaries in particular), it doesn’t contain a lot of new information for anyone already participating in the reality-based community. In my case (as is the case for almost all Canadians), it was preaching to the converted, but it’s still important to see.

We’re proud of our universal health care system up here, but that’s no reason to get complacent. Canadians who favour an American-style private health care system are in a definite minority, but they have a well-funded and loud propaganda machine. The Fraser Institute, for example, a far-right think tank that favours health care privatization, pulls in $6.9 million in revenue a year. Its board members have included David Asper, whose family owns CanWest, Canada’s largest media corporation, which frequently reports that our health care system is in crisis. Recently, Torontonians have seen billboards and bus ads springing up around the city clamouring for “heath care reform.” While a politician who proposed an outright switch to a for-profit system would be committing political suicide, we are always at risk for a death by a thousand cuts. Sicko is a reminder of why we need to fight tooth and nail, not only to keep what we already have, but to push harder for an even better, even more inclusive system (the French one is looking pretty good).

Right-wing critics will call Sicko biased, but there’s no moral argument that can be made for a for-profit health care system. The portrait Moore paints of the American system is staggeringly dystopic: a woman who watches her toddler die because her insurance company won’t cover treatment in a non-approved hospital, an uninsured man forced to choose which one of his fingers he can have reattached, a disoriented elderly woman who can’t pay her bills who is put in a cab, still wearing her hospital gown and slippers, and dumped in front of a homeless shelter. Up here, we know that the American system is bad, but it’s not until we see these real stories from real people that we can appreciate how truly bad it is.

Americans are currently bound to their employers or insurance companies, at the mercy of what amounts to a lottery: Will I get sick? If I do get sick, will my insurance company pay for it? A long and complicated illness can bankrupt you, whether you have coverage or not. If you’re too sick to work, you lose your coverage. And insurance companies are inherently nasty: You pay them a premium, and they profit when you don’t get your money back. Combine this with a profit motive for health care providers (prolonged treatment rakes in more money than a cure), and you have a giant clusterfuck where the economic incentives conflict with saving people’s lives.

There’s a utilitarian argument for a private system that Moore hints at, and it’s a chilling one: a cowed population is easier to control than a free population. But how do you get the majority of Americans to agree to that arrangement? Moore argues, as others have, that efforts to humanize health care in America have failed largely because of Americans’ fear of socialism. These fears are easy enough to debunk, usually in a few sentences.

Argument 1: It costs too much.
No it doesn’t. America already spends more than countries with universal health care programs. Preventative medicine saves money, for one thing, and how can you prevent illness when you can’t afford the fee for regular check-ups?

Argument 2: But we’ll be drowning in taxes!
We do pay more taxes than Americans. But very few Canadians, if any, end up in debt for the rest of their lives because they couldn’t pay their taxes. Compare to the number of Americans who end up in debt for the rest of their lives because they can’t pay their medical bills. Everyone pays a bit more in taxes so that no one pays a lot more for health care.

Argument 3: With universal health care, you don’t get the freedom to choose your own doctor.
I don’t know why people get so upset about this one. For one thing, it isn’t accurate: My doctor was annoyingly uptight about my lifestyle choices, and inconveniently located, so I got another doctor. This process took under an hour. But even if it were true, isn’t it better to see a doctor you didn’t choose than to not be able to see a doctor at all?

Argument 4: Wait times kill patients!
Wait times vary according to region, but in urban areas, they really aren’t that bad. And it’s still preferable to not being able to see a doctor at all.

Argument 5: But…but…that’s socialism!
Doesn’t it sound better than what you’ve got now?

Grind it up and put it in her coffee and presto! The perfect woman.

Monday, April 30th, 2007

All together now, feminist community:

What. The. Fuck?

Hope for sex-boost slimming pill

Around 40% of women are said to experience low libido at some point
Scientists are developing a pill which could boost women’s libido and reduce their appetite.

The hormone-releasing pill has so far only been given to female monkeys and shrews who displayed more mating behaviour and ate less.

I would like to extend my compliments to the BBC for giving more article space to the psychologist than to the to super-awesome diet pill aspects of the drug. Other publications will be unable to resist the temptation of emphasizing that science has created a pill that makes women thin and horny, and what could possibly be wrong with that?