I've just linked to a US video in which it is apparent that the audience want an uninsured 30 year old to die for the sake of his recklessness in not having health insurance and I suggested it would be three to five years before the Tories are saying the same thing here.
I believe that.
I believe it because I already hear stuff like this.
People; seemingly respectable, sensible people, often themselves retired, tell me (it happened this weekend) that "we have too many old people and we can't afford to keep them."
This is, of course, a Tory line; a line that demands people have private pensions.
I ask these people "So, what do you want to happen to the people who haven't got pensions, who can't afford to pay their way or to buy care? What do you want to happen to them? Are they to die in the streets?"
They look at me, bemused. They've obviously never linked the proposition 'we can't afford the elderly' with 'dying in the streets' before, but it's not far fetched to do so: one follows from the other.
And then they shrug and say "I don't know, but we can't afford pensions".
Well that's not good enough, because that means people will die on the streets.
And don't doubt people will vote for it: just watch that video of Tea Party people cheering on the death of a young man without medical insurance. Those are real people cheering for the imposition of real suffering.
It's sick, but make no mistake: this is what we're up against.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Treatment by the NHS does not depend on someone having a pension. You are taking two completely separate issues and combining them in a pathetic attempt at scare-mongering.
When I hear Tory MPs saying they want a state in the UK like that in Hong Kong – 15% income tax, no VAT, no CGT, noi inheritance tax, very low corporation tax I know I’m telling the truth
This option is on their agenda.
Richard: We have already arrived at a situation in the UK where elderly people are faced with the choice of either dieing of starvation or dieing of cold — simply because they can not afford to both eat AND meet the cost of keeping warm. They often die alone.
The elderly are vulnerable members of our society with no special protection in law — they are easy targets for muggers, scammers and callous governments. Once people reach a “certain age” they should be afforded a “status” in society which provides them with legal protection — as are children.
The PSA is a testament to what may befall defenceless and frail people at the hands of the unscrupulous.
Interesting. While Sen. Paul is coherent (if seemingly vile at times), the host asked the ‘wrong’ question. He referred to the example of a young, fit male who could easily afford the care, who ‘chooses’ not to. The fact is, that the means to be able to afford this choice is being denied by the shrinking share of GDP that the bottom 50% control. These ‘choices’ simply aren’t there for most people in this situation – i.e. long-term cancer care. Hence collective insurance being the infinitely preferable system. However, this admission punctures the illusion that we’re fully autonomous individuals – it’s the illusion of choice that allows those on the right to rationalise away these vile opinions.
Agreed, wholeheartedly
Rationalising empathic failure is what you might call it
If we pushed a button and created from nowhere enough money to keep old people warm and fed (and saw to it that’s the use to which it was put), would it devalue the currency? I doubt it. The value of a fiat currency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So why aren’t we discussing that option?
BB