In article <196 at sftwks.UUCP> bradbury at sftwks.UUCP (Robert Bradbury) writes:
>would agree with me. National Health Care such as is found in Canada
>and other countries perform rationing and politically modified cost-benefit
>tradeoffs but in many cases these "facts" are not clearly explained.
>The doctor simply says, "This isn't treatable" or "You will have to
>wait 8 months for treatment" instead of "We cannot afford to treat you."
Well, that depends on who you are and how much clout you have. If you
are Jow Blow, that is what they say. If you are a bigwig, well, then,
that is different.
>>I agree to a point. I consider productive older individuals who still have
>their mental capacities at their disposal are a vital national resource.
As for the rest, well, let them die, or even better, let's set up
euthanasia parlors. I mean, after all, what difference does it
make if a person is of use to hismelf and his family? If he is no
longer of use as a vital national resource, to the knacker with him!
>I would offer as a counterpoint the elderly couple who live up the street
>from me who as far as I can determine rarely leave their home and spend their
>days watching TV. Now, given the relative contributions made to our society
>by G.P. and the couple I mention, do they deserve the same access to the
>limited medical resources our society is able to provide?
Of course not! And people like you should be appointed to citizen's
councils to review people's lives and activities and decide just
which ones are worthy and which ones should be put down!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb at cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
