*For some reference, see what I wrote several weeks ago about the current push for healthcare reform in the U.S.*
“My dearest Britains, put down your quaking cuppa and let me wipe the tears of fear from your eyes. Here, take this spoonful of sugar, for this medicine may be a little bitter, but it’s good for you. I know better than you, don’t you see? Now now, stop your crying! Don’t you worry a tit, Supernanny(state) is here to save you from the worst enemy you have ever faced. A demon who lurks in the shadows and preys, ever so slowly, on your individual. This demon lurks within you and must be excised for the good of the state…and you. Don’t you understand? It is you you should be fearing! Suppernanny(state) is here to save you from yourself! It is for your own good, and all we care about is your well being and your life!!
Also, you’re bloody expensive.”
Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes……The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
While I hate to seem the heartless miser, but with a population of 60 million and an obesity rate of nearly one quarter of that number, it’s hard to think that such an increase of tax is purely philanthropic. Rising costs of N.H.S. (National Health Service, Britain’s publicly funded health provider with a 2007-2008 budget of 104 billion pounds sterling) has already forced them to start rationing care, including denying hip replacements to those considered to be “obese”.
Is anyone surprised? I’m not.
In fact, this is to be expected. Private businesses know that to in order to control costs, you have to either a) increase your influx of capital, b) reduce your outflow and/or c) do both. Why should a government run system be any different? If obesity is a burden on the system, it is only natural that they must then pay more for what they will most likely take (the same principle that American insurance companies use for high risk individuals, but are so chastised for by the Michael Moore’s of this nation. Oh the irony.). What is the final cost? Well, your choice, of course. Like all good socialist programs, it’s a slow ex-sanguination by the hands of the very people who begged to be saved from themselves.
Yet, this is Britain. It’s across the pond, and the Prime Minister isn’t exactly a US President, right? Think again. Considering the recent bans on trans-fats in both New York City and Seattle, the plague of smoking bans across US states, it seems Americans want the same “salvation” in the loving arms of Supernanny(state). Even more alarming, with a population of nearly five times that of the U.K., and projected obesity rates of 75% by 2015, perhaps we should consider what we are giving up while we are pushing so hard to give in.
Don’t worry, that “free” health care is going to cost you.
Theodore Dalrymple wrote a great piece recently about how awful Blair was when it came to making Britain a nanny state. Basically, not counting Sundays, a new law was created every day he was in office. Here is Dalrymple’s essay.
Yes, those smoking bans are really getting annoying. Here in Minnesota, they just banned smoking in all bars, restaurants, and workplaces. Our Republican governor regrettably signed the ban.
It is interesting to note that the first modern day smoking ban was enacted by Hitler. He was also a huge proponent for animal rights. He also outlawed homeschooling, which the Germans saw fit to keep on the books after WWII and is still in effect today (in fact, the law was just upheld by the European courts, which said that parents’ rights to raise their children were superseded by the state’s right to make sure that children were properly educated).
Unfortunately, such feel-good laws like smoking bans have majority support in this country since it helps everyone: those who don’t smoke don’t have to breath the toxic fumes, and those who do smoke are helped in their obvious need to quit. Furthermore, in some parts of this country, the medical profession has decided to not give out transplants to alcoholics and long-time smokers. What next, someone who eats fast food on a regular basis can’t have a heart transplant?
Organ transplants offer an understandably fine line… denying people care just because they have a bad habit is not right, yet if there is a shortage of organs, why should someone who knowingly took a risk by abusing cigarettes get an organ before someone who showed more restraint?
Most “save me from myself” laws have an ingrained backing of philanthropy, though misguided. This is indeed why they have such a majority of support. We all know smoking is bad, so would it be bad if the US Government “encouraged” us to quit by raising taxes? Banning public smoking? Etc? The problem turns into an 89 degree slippery slope…not quite vertical, but still quite a fast slide. What people don’t realize is that they are slowly giving up their right to their own life decisions and continually turning to the government to not only save us from ourselves, but to force such majority change on others. It’s equivalent to putting the frog in the water and slowly turning up the heat…he’ll sit there till he dies. Turn up the heat all at once and he jumps out of the water.
As for organ transplants, I think that’s a different story. There indeed ARE rules about organ transplants. Those who drink on a bad liver usually are not first in line for the organ when they come in. But if I can take your point a bit further, and show that if all healthcare becomes “publicly funded” (socialized), then it is the GOVERNMENT who makes final choices on such things. Talk about legislating medical from a bench.
If you don’t start giving me research credit, you can find a new paralegal!
I find the lack of personal responsibility expected here ridiculous. If this idea did make it across the pond (which wouldn’t surprise me as that is the direction we are trending), I can see it being met with much enthusiasm. We are, after all, the country where the “Oops, I Crapped My Pants diet pill is flying off the shelves.
Americans want it to work drastically and NOW. It’s like we are a collective 2 year old.