« Pelosi Book Bombs | Main | Moonbattery as Emptiness »
August 1, 2008
30,000 Left Starving in British Hospitals Last Year
It's said that during the Revolutionary War, more Americans died in British custody than on the battlefield, mainly because they were not fed. Inmates of Britain's socialized healthcare system suffer a similar fate:
At least 30,000 patients were left starving on NHS wards last year, despite ministers' pledges to make proper nutrition in hospitals a priority.
Last year, Health Minister Ivan Lewis admitted that some patients were given a single scoop of mash as a meal.
Others were 'tortured' with trays of food placed just beyond their reach while nurses said they were too busy to help them eat.
On the positive side, withholding meals until patients starve not only saves on food costs, but frees up beds and eliminates useless eaters who no longer pay taxes.
It's no coincidence that the same people who would use the Fairness Doctrine and gun control measures to destroy our Constitutional rights also want the government in charge of healthcare. It is an important step toward absolute power, as Britain's unfed patients can attest.
On a tip from mega.
Posted by Van Helsing at August 1, 2008 9:33 AM
Comments
Posted by: mega at August 1, 2008 10:01 AM
Money is a powerful incentive. When government controls health care, there is no incentive to keep people healthy once they stop paying into the system. There is no reason to cure people that can not produce things (the elderly, the terminally sick, the handicapped). They cease to be people - they become "resources", and "drains on the system." They are no longer someone's mother, or daughter, or uncle, or friend. An accountant at the Central Office decided that their care must be cut "for the good of everyone", and as they are the government, there is no one to run to for help.
People need to think long and hard about letting the government handle important aspects of our lives. They say that things like this "can't happen here." Well, these things are made possible by allowing the government to intervene in the first place. The only way to guarantee that it can't happen here is to not start down that path in the first place.
Posted by: CoderInCrisis at August 1, 2008 10:24 AM
What!!! The government arn't in charge of the British Healthcare there are also private hospitals. If you want higher quality hospitals you get health insurance just like the US but unlike the US you also get the option of a lower quality free version. Get your facts right.
||
||
===========================
||
||
Posted by: David at August 1, 2008 3:01 PM
David: RIght, so you pay to not use things that you've already paid for, because the latter are crap (even compared to the price you paid in tax). That's progress!
Under Universal Healthcare I would have died multiple times.
Posted by: GeoSTI at August 1, 2008 6:12 PM
The defenders of socialized health care are reduced to whining, "Sure, it kills people, but you can get private insurance if you don't want to die."
O.K. So, if government care sucks and private care is good... why have government care in the first place?
Posted by: V the K at August 1, 2008 7:21 PM
David,
We have a similar arrangement in the US. If you want your kids to get the best education, you pay for them to go to private schools. However, there is also the option to go to the free government run schools. The problem is, those schools aren't free. You have to pay for them whether or not your kids attend those schools and even you have no kids. So, guess where 85-95% of US students go to school?
Also, what does it say about the difference between quality levels if one provides food and the other doesn't?
Posted by: Kafir at August 2, 2008 6:17 AM
