Who decides on your medical treatment?

For ever, I have been pointing out the shortcomings of socialized medicine:  what it boils down to is that the one who picks up the tab gets the final say in which treatments gets picked.  And, if that decision is not made by you or your loved ones, but rather by a bureaucrat who does not know you personally, the decisions may not be exactly the ones you might wish…

Thomas Sowell has put this extremely well in his 4-part series:

Whose medical decisions?

Whose medical decisions?, Part II

Whose medical decisions?, Part III

Whose medical decisions?, Part IV

When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…

Yet again, a few ‘spokespeople’ claiming to represent a rich (in human qualities – not wealth!) and diverse community have done a great disservice to themselves and all the people they claim to speak for.  In one moment, they have erased the individuality of the members of their group, and chosen to cast them all in the role of extremists… all in the role of victims.  (I will not identify this specific incident until later on in the post, because it is essential that I explain my disgust with the behaviour in general, before focusing on the specific.)

This happens so often, and in so varied groups, one could perhaps argue that it is one of the defining attributes of humanity.  This one, however, is as unhelpful and counterproductive as it is predictable.


Well, first, let’s consider who usually ‘speaks for a group’ – as an unofficial spokesperson:

  1. A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across?
  2. A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’?
  3. A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding?
  4. An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them?

Let’s consider them, one at a time:

1.  A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across

Professional communicators are usually professionals, who cost a lot of money.  Therefore, they tend to be ‘official’ spokespeople, not ‘unofficial ones’ when it comes to ‘unorganized groups’.  Still, some sub-groups – which might wish to manipulate the rest of the ‘group’, might choose to hire professional communicators.  However, the message these professionals deliver is not in the interest of the larger group, but instead only serves whatever the purposes of the sub-group that hired it.  In other words, if the spokesperson IS a professional communicator, one must ask who hired him, and to what purpose.

2.   A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’

Well – these are usually called ‘official spokespeople’ – on the grounds that they actually have the ‘backing of the whole group’.  So, by definition, unofficial spokespeople do not fall into category #2.

3.   A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding

Well, again, not likely.  Moderates usually do not have the desire – or feel the need to – speak out.  It is enough for them to be secure in who they are, because they know that real bigotry is the problem of the bigot and perceived bigotry is not worth bothering with.  There is, of course, an exception to this:  when even the moderates within the group feel threatened, they will speak out.

However, that is not the situation I am attempting to address here:  it is an essential distinction!  When the whole of a group is truly threatened, then it is essential that the moderates are the ones who speak out.  So, how do we tell the situations apart?  It has been my experience that when moderates speak out, they speak for themselves – and they clearly state that they have no pretentions of speaking for everyone else.  They will share their experiences – and only by listening to their stories will one realize that it is not just this one individual who is affected, but other members of the community, too.  When people speak up and, before they even get to tell you what happened to them, personally, they start out by saying that ‘the group’ as a whole is being threatened, when they begin by claiming that they speak for ‘everyone’ – without having an ‘official spokesperson’ status – then, in my never-humble-opinion, one is justified in suspecting a manipulation.

Which kind of brings me to #4:  An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them ….

Ah, yes…I think I’ve made this point already.

Please, judge for yourself if in this instance, we are dealing with #1, 2, 3 or 4:

An MP (Member of Parliament) sent (several versions of) a brochure to his constituents, now that the Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13(1) of our Human Rights Code conravenes the Canadian Constitution.  In that brochure, the MP criticized ‘radical Muslim voices’ who, in many peoples’ opinions, abused this section of the HR code.

The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!

He did not criticize Muslims, or even the majority of Muslims, or any such thing.  He clearly (and, if the reports are accurate, unequivocally) specified that it was the extremists whom he was referring to.

This did not stop ‘unofficial spokespeople’ (though some claim to be official, since there is no external, universally accepted authority structure in Islam, it is not possible to actually have an ‘official spokesperson for all Muslims’ – by the very tenets of Islam!) from claiming that this MP had attacked ALL Muslim people!

Take note:  this is an important distinction!

The MP specified he was referring to a few extremist voices only.

The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!

Even a cursory application of logic makes it clear that these ‘spokespeople‘ are making the extravagant patently false claim that ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS!

I’m sorry, but I do not believe that for a moment!

More than just ‘believe’ – I KNOW it is not true!  One of my favourite cousins is a Muslima – and she is certainly not an extremist!  She is a wonderful person – I wish more people were like she is, because then more of us would get along without all these manipulations and ‘stuff’!

These self-appointed loudmoths do NOT speak for her!  I know, because I asked her.  THEY did NOT!

And, I want those ‘spokespeople’ to be found and dragged in front of the whole world community to answer for their slanderous misrepresentation of many, many excellent Canadians!

It is THEY who is spreading hate and division and discord among us!

It is high time they were held responsible for their evil deeds!

H/T:  Blazing Catfur whose site now includes the brochres which triggered this ‘outrage’.

Connie at FreeDominion has 6 pdf’s of the brochures.

P.S.:  If you would like to say a few supportive words to the MP, his address is Anders.R@parl.gc.ca

Medicare as means of coercion: as long as I pay your bills, you will obey my rules!

How many people’s parents used to say something equivalent to this:

“As long as you live under my roof, you will obey my rules!”

For those whose parents supported them while they studied in another city, this might be a more familiar version of the expression:

“As long as I pay your bills, you will do as I say!”

It is a rather reasonable expression of the parents’ role: as long as their son or daughter lives under the parents’ roof or as long as the parents are financially responsible (even partially) for the offspring, that offspring (whether chronologically an adult or not) is not truly emancipated.   As long as one is a dependent, one cannot expect to have their independence!

OK – so what if the adult child’s medical costs (say a University or College student) are covered by the parent: would that parent would be within their rights to insist that their son or daughter (adult or not) not indulge in, say, ultimate fighting?

After all, we know that some activities are,  statistically speaking, much more likely to result in higher medical bills than others. So, if someone else is paying a person’s medical bill, that someone else would be justified in putting in some limits on dangerous behaviour.


So, what about a situation where a group of friends get together to purchase a medical insurance in order to get a ‘group rate’? It is inevitable that not every member of the group will necessarily have a slightly different ‘benefit’ at any given point in time – and most will accept that going into the deal. But…

What if one of these people – let’s call him ‘Bill’ (pun intended) – takes up the hobby of getting a little tipsy and, on a dare, nailing his hand to ‘stuff’. Whenever he does it, Bill gets rushed to a hospital, his hand has to be surgically separated from whatever he had nailed it to this time, Bill then has to get shots… You get the picture. Bill incurs a sizeable bill.

And he does it again.  And again.  And everyone’s group-insurance costs go up!

In this situation, do Bill’s friends have the right to tell him to stop nailing his hand to stuff?

Do they have the right to force him to stop?

The next time he does it, do they have the right to tell him that he is not allowed to use their group insurance to cover the cost of the medical treatment?

Perhaps we can agree that this particular Bill is an idiot. But – where exactly does his right to be an idiot stop and the rights of his friends not to have Bill’s idiocy ruin them financially begin?

Obviously, I picked an extreme example. So, let’s pick another one…

What if, instead of nailing his hand to stuff, Bill chose to get piercings?  It’s sort of similar – just a bit more socially acceptable.  And, what if Bill’s piercings got infected, he needed to be hospitalized, and all that.

And then he got another piercing.

And another.

And they kept on getting infected or having other complications, and Bill’s friend’s medical insurance rates kept rising and rising… Would they have the right to tell him to stop getting any more piercings? Or do they have the right to tell him that any future piercing-related costs will not be covered by the common insurance plan?

All right – what if Bill did stop getting piercings… but one of his existing rings gets caught on something, tears the skin, and Bill has to go to the hospital again. It’s the piercings which are causing the cost to go up – again! Should the group insurance cover it?

And what about if Bill were not an idiot – but his friends were. What if they thought that regular exercise and a good diet was bad for you, because they heard about a lot of athletes getting arthritis? What if these friends believed (truly and honestly) that regular exercise was an unreasonably high-risk behaviour, much like nailing one’s hand to stuff would be. And, what if Bill liked to do yoga – and he pulled something that required medical help…a few times?

Who gets to decide who is ‘the idiot’ and who is ‘reasonable’?

Or what if Bill were a Billie – and she had 16 kids, while nobody else in the group had more than 2: should her choices in fertility affect her friends’ medical rates?

Should only her first 2 births be covered by the group’s insurance?

Or should the whole group be responsible for paying for Billie’s hospital bills if she got into an accident because she was speeding? What about the bills of her 16 kids, who were in the vehicle, too?

Who gets to decide?

Before, or after the treatment?

Would any of your answers change if, instead of choosing to enter into this group insurance arrangement, all the friends were forced into it by law, with no means of opting out? You know, like all Canadians are?

These are not easy answers: I certainly don’t know where the balance lies. All I am trying to do is to make sure that people understand that the ‘benefits’ of being ‘one of a group’ come with the cost of allowing the group some control over one’s behaviour. There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’ – or a free ‘medical care’!

Someone always has to bear the costs: and the one who bears the costs will want to have a say in how you behave (and incur the cost)!

In the UK, this is the reality: people ARE being denied medical treatment because they are deemed to have too high a body-mass-index (which actually penalizes muscular people, as muscle is heavier than fat), as are smokers or dare to get old. Their treatment them just does not seem cost-effective or fair to the rest of society that has to pay for it….

And, with my own eyes, the last time I went to renew one of my kids’ health cards at the Ontario Ministry of Health office (it is downtown – nearest public parking is about a 10-minute walk from the office), I actually saw a guy there, with a broken leg….trying to get some problem with his health-card straightened out, because the people at the hospital’s emergency room refused to treat him until the problem was straightened out. He offered to pay – but the law forbids the hospital to let him pay first and get reimbursed later…as it forbids the hospital to set one’s broken leg (or provide any treatment – even a triage assessment) until one has a working health card.

Think about it.

‘Death by Committee’: British socialized medicare hits a new low

Leave it to the Brits, with their wonderful sense of ‘understatement’, to give the expression ‘death by committee’ a very real and unpleasant meaning!

As slowly but surely becomes true of every ‘nationalized’ or ‘universal, government-run’ medical system, there is not enough ‘medicine’ (space, equipment, staff, meds…) to go serve everyone in Britain (once known as ‘Great Britain’ – now, they are too ‘politically correct’ to call themselves ‘Great’).

It would appear that British National Health Service has found a nifty new way to ration their medical care:  kill the ‘old people’!

Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, was among a group of medical experts who wrote to the Telegraph warning that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives.

Another article on the same topics says:

Under NHS guidance introduced in a number of hospitals to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warned in their letter.

So, if a patient is judged to be ‘ready’, all their medical care is taken away and they are euthanized.  Simple – and it might just free up enough beds to get rid of those pesky statistics about babies being born in hospital hallways, or even toilets…even turning those horny women away seems to cause bad press.


In my never-humble-opinion, people in the UK are being denied medical care, universally, from ‘cradle to grave’!

So, how does this ‘death by committee’ work?

Well, there is this agency, NICE (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments…or was that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence…or is there a difference?)   which nicely approved this ‘ticker box’ form (you know, there are questions, boxes to ‘tick off’ and the number of ‘ticks’ and the spots they are in will ‘objectively’ determine next course of action).  The ‘medical care team’ – and this team apparently MUST include A doctor…so, the rest are, presumably, administrators and bureaucrats – will ‘tick off’ the boxes.

Notice that this ‘medical care team’ does not include the patient, or any representatives, friends or family of the patient.  This is purely to ensure the ‘ticks’ are made in an objective manner and no mushy sentimentality would come in the way of ‘efficiency’ and ‘excellence’.  In other words, these ‘death committees’ (or ‘death boards, as they have also been called) only produce ‘professional ticks’!

If the ‘ticks’ add up a certain way, the patient gets taken off medicine, denied food and water (apparently, this happens even if the patient is able to feed him/her self), and given a ‘parting shot’ of drugs that kill him/her over the next 24 hours.

Attention is paid to every detail!  For example, these drugs also conveniently sedate the patient as part of the killing process:  so no protest is possible and any signs that the patient is getting better are masked.  It’s ‘neater’ this way.  Dead patients hardly ever complain, you know…

Now, now, there is no point getting all ticked off about it!

They have this form here, which proves that you were supposed to have died already, and you are just taking too long mucking about!  So, it’s not like anyone can blame them, is it?  They are just helping you do the right thing

In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with this short documentary film:

s[ection]. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter

Today is a day to celebrate!

Today, we have seen the first acquittal in  Human Rights trial under Section 13(1) – the ‘Thought Crimes’ section!

BCF has the scoop:

Athanosis Hadjis delivered the decision, which included the following:

…I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.


Now that we have a ruling that the infamous Section 13(1) is inconsistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the road is paved to having it repealed!

The ‘frog in hot water’ story…

First of all, I must say that I do not approve of this sort of experiments.  Not at all.

Still, this story is worth learning from:

If someone puts a frog into a pot of very hot water, the frog will jump out of the pot.  BUT,  if one puts the frog into a  pot of cool water, and then heats it up very, very slowly, the frog will not jump out – it will allow itself to be boiled!

Because the temperature is increasing so slowly, there is no ‘trigger’ to signal the danger in the frog…so the frog takes no action to avoid it!

When it comes to our rights and freedoms, we are a lot like these frogs:  because our rights are being eroded very, very slowly, we just sit there and allow it to go on and on and on, without lifting a finger to try and preserve the very rights and freedoms which define our society.

Because  the process of erosion of our rigthts is so slow and gradual, we lack the ‘trigger’, that one ‘oppression’ which is, on its own, worth standing up and starting to fight!

And that is, in a very real way, true.  No single little encroachment on our rights, no new little oppression, is, by itself, so big that it alone would be worthy of a ‘revolt‘.  That is why it is so easy to ridicule those who get incensed about it!

But it is the continuous process of steady and unmistakable – and, it seems, unavoidable – usurption of our rights, encroachment on our freedoms, which is going to leave us slaves of The State:

  • The State will control what we can spend all of our money on (they will tax just about all our disposable income and only give us ‘tax-rebates’ to buy the products they ‘approve’:  an ‘allowance’ which we will only ‘get’ if we spend it ‘the right way’)
  • The State will control what medical care is warranted, and when, and who maybenefit from it and who may not (many ‘smokers’ are already being denied medical treatment…just the tip of the iceberg:  the justification that ‘we are all paying into Medicare, so we have the right what ‘risks’ to your health you must avoid’ will be used more and more to control people’s private behaviour, threatening to deny medical treatment to those who do not comply) (OK – I worded this badly…I am trying to get across that The State already does, and will do so more and more, use the justification that it is ‘paid into by’ everyone’ – so ‘everyone’  has the responsibily to only use it ‘wisely’ – and since they are administering it, they get to decided what is ‘using it wisely’ ‘ to weild ‘Medicare’ as a means of controlling more and more of our behaviours.)
  • The State already controls what we may or may not eat/put into our body – and these laws are becoming more and more intrusive, and will continue this trend
  • The State is passing more and more laws which erode private property rights and regulate how we may or may not behave while we are ‘in our private homes’
  • The State already controls education
  • More and more people are becoming directly or indirectly employed by The State, as The State is increasingly usurping the roles of private businesses:  this gives The State even more intrusive control over the populationwhile effectively suppressing dissent (most people are afraid to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’)
  • The State is increasingly controlling what we may or may not say – and has even, through its singularly misnamed ‘Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals’ – found a way to punish people for thinking forbidden thoughts!
  • …the list goes on and on and on…

And because each tiny little step is so small, we are letting it happen!

We should pay attention to the ‘frog in hot water’ story, before it is too late to ‘jump out of the pot’!