Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More health care fun ...
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, November 20, 2007

One of the things we continually point out is that when the government runs health care, government will also tell you how you must live (or else). And if you don't meet the government's criteria, government will punish you:
A British man who moved to New Zealand has been told by officials that his wife is too fat to join him.

Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after initially being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.
How big of a step is it from that to saying you're too old and a potential burden on the health care system or your disease is too rare and a potential burden on the health care system, or, well, you get the idea.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
wow, from the pic she doesnt even look all that big compared to some iv seem.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
But no one, not the Brits, not the New Zealanders, not anybody will do this better than Americans. We’ll need some catch-up time, definitely. But our apparatus is already in place.

Eugenic editing at the beginning of life. Euthanasia at the end. And care restrictions in the middle on those who are "too sick" for the system to help.

Budgetary requirements, you know. But more important: the universal care system must be shown to be humming along, to reassure the healthy, who will be most pleased by it, because, you know, it won’t cost them much. The kids will get their shots, why, almost for free.

But the really sick, they’ll only be gumming up the works.

I’m anticipating that a way will be found to evaluate the patient in terms of a cost-benefit analysis based on the carbon footprint. "Sorry, Sal, old pal, but your hospitalization, the energy consumption vs. the benefit to society for saving your life, well, you’re a huge net loss. Now, be a good fellow and take this slip with you over to the hospice. I hear the morphine drips over there are fantastic."

And one of the strongest political elements in American society will be a very well-fed health care sector, unionized, bigger than school teachers, and crack enforcers of the "get sick, you die" program that maintains the efficiency of the universal system.

Do I need to remind anyone of the boundless contempt that the Left has for human life? Well, it has only grown through the years.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Perhaps this needs updating:

First they punished the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they punished the obese
and I did not speak out
because I was not obese.
Then they punished the lazy who didn’t exercise
and I did not speak out
because I did exercise.
Then they punished me
because I refused to take the anti-depressents they prescribed
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Man. How do you tell a guy that?

I mean, really...

"We’re ever so sorry, but your wife is quite the porker, so she can’t live here."

What, is there a sign when you step off the plane/boat "But be this thin to live here"?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Hey....are you telling me that we implement a national health plan and we might start preventing undocumented workers from coming in because they aren’t healthy enough!
That’s wrong! That’s just wrong!
These undocumented working people have rights you know!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
My wife and I have had similar noteriety with this issue.

It weighs on you after a while.

sincerely,

Jack Spratt
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
Man. How do you tell a guy that?
Well, it’s a delicate task best left to professionals, isn’t it? People who can keep it simple so as to keep the line moving, as per Michael K:
"Sorry you’re too fat to live here. NEXT!"
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
I like to pose this thought exercise to people who are both passionately pro choice and passionately in favor of government-run healthcare: Suppose that the US goes down the road to European-style nationalized healthcare, where the government provides all healthcare and private healthcare is prohibited. Then a very conservative administration eliminates abortion from the services provided, or throws up enough bureaucratic obstacles to achieve the same result without an actual executive order. Wouldn’t that instantaneously turn back the clock to the pre-Roe era?

The point is not that this scenario is likely to happen, but that shrinking the private sphere of life and putting more and more of our lives under the control of the government tends to limit freedom and choices. Not only Rethuglican freedoms like owning guns, but cherished liberal freedoms like abortion will be subject to the whim of government bureaucrats.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Keep in mind that national healthcare is being sold as a way to make sure every uninsured American gets healtcare coverage. But wait, in countries with nationalized health care, apparently they are actually trying to limit coverage rather than extend it.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
While I’m certainly no fan of Govt run health care (for this kind of reason), I fail to see how this is any different from private insurers rejecting coverage because of a "Preexisting Condition".

While currently, it is only a large price differential for smoking... adding obesity doesn’t seem like much of a step... and again it seems like a small step to move from "large price hike" to "rejecting applicant".
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
While I’m certainly no fan of Govt run health care (for this kind of reason), I fail to see how this is any different from private insurers rejecting coverage because of a "Preexisting Condition".
And this is an area were Ezra Klein and I agree completely. Remove insurance from the management of businesses and make it something that is bought through the market (I certainly have no objection if business would like to contribute as a benefit).

That way, insurance is portable and for the most part, "preexisting conditions" isn’t a concern (as long as you maintain your insurance).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Hey! It’s for her own good.

"we might start preventing undocumented workers from coming in because they aren’t healthy enough!"

Au contraire, mon frere. For one thing, you have to catch them to determine if they are healthy enough, and enforcement is a no-no, as we all know. Illegals would eventually be in the same boat (heh) as the ineligibles, having to resort to going to emergency rooms for medical care. Ironically, the ineligibles would owe their access to emergency room care to the illegals, since no one would dare deny emergency care to illegals, and there can be, of course, no checking of immigration status. Being somewhat under the recommended height for my weight myself, I am going to learn Spanish. I may even permanently change my name to ElGordoActual.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I fail to see how this is any different from private insurers rejecting coverage because of a "Preexisting Condition".
I’m thinking there’s likely a distinction between restricting freedom of movement by force and saying your condition requires you to pony up the money to pay for it. If they’d allowed her in and refused to cover her it would be different.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
I’m thinking there’s likely a distinction between restricting freedom of movement by force and saying your condition requires you to pony up the money to pay for it. If they’d allowed her in and refused to cover her it would be different.
They have no duty towards her freedom of movement - she’s not a New Zealander. Their mandate is to govern for the benefit of New Zealand alone. They don’t have to extend the same rights to a British woman that they do to one of their own. If she was a New Zealander herself then the situation would be completely different.
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://
Boy could we use you here to argue against undocumented worker rights in the US.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider