Regarding the Inherently Social Nature of Human Beings

Posted on June 21st, 2008 by bosco Tags: , , , , , , 2 Comments »

Yet again Social Memory Complex hits another homerun with this little gem. Granted I recognize that I’m biased but I find the amount of times I agree with what this person has to say to be uncanny. It’s not just the Belle and Sebastian quotes either. I enjoy the content. In this piece the author does a nice job of pointing out the existential nature of cooperation. Too many people pin anarchists as extreme individualists when the fact of the matter is we all act within a natural collective that doesn’t seem to require centralized control.  People, like most animals, have an inborn instinct to “get along” and with education we can satisfy this instinct without the use of violence.

Free healthcare can be quite expensive

Posted on June 17th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…

The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves.

One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.

The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy.

Research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology found that kidney patients taking the new drug Sutent lived six months longer than those prescribed alpha interferon, the NHS treatment.

The failure of the NHS to make more effective drugs available to cancer patients has been condemned as “unethical” by leading doctors.

A woman with bowel cancer is fighting for the right to pay for a drug that could extend her life long enough for her to spend Christmas with her grandchildren.

Sheila Norrington, 59, a former NHS medical secretary from Maidstone, Kent, has been told by doctors that if she buys the drug Erbitux, which the health service will not pay for, she will lose her state-funded cancer care. Erbitux is the only drug capable of treating her advanced bowel cancer.

Norrington’s husband, Goff, 61, a former sales manager, said: “We have been told that if we pay for it ourselves we will be thrown off the NHS completely and we will need to pay for everything privately. We are devastated. This is not going to cure my wife, but if it keeps her alive a little bit longer, then we would pay for it.”

The couple say that although they could pay for a few cycles of the drug, which costs about £3,000 a month, they could not pay for all Norrington’s care, including scans, blood tests and consultations.

Goff Norrington added: “We have two young granddaughters and this could make the difference between sitting round the table with them at Christmas or not. We think it is deplorable that patients can get this drug almost anywhere in Europe but we cannot get it in the UK.”

A spokesman for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said: “We are governed by Department of Health policy on this issue.”

A poll for The Sunday Times shows strong support for allowing co-payment in the National Health Service, with 89% saying that people who buy additional cancer drugs should continue to get free NHS treatment.

Only 5% think allowing co-payment would create a two-tier NHS. Until now this has been the position taken by Alan Johnson, the health secretary.

Ministers had feared that allowing co-payment would upset less well-off patients, but the YouGov poll of nearly 1,800 people shows strong backing across the social spectrum and supporters of all three main parties.

Lee over at MooreWatch.com I think said it all: “This, of course, begs the question.  If compassionate free government healthcare can’t provide, y’know, actual healthcare to patients, and they are forced to paying massive amounts of money to buy their own treatments, maybe the solution to the problem is less free government healthcare and more private sector solutions.”

When will these people realize that the government can not negate scarcity? The only thing that can bring more and better healthcare to the masses is an increase in their wealth and the only way to do that is capital accumulation through free market capitalism.

Remember parents, the government owns your children

Posted on June 16th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.examiner.com/…

Six parents of chronically truant San Francisco schoolchildren - each of whom missed more than 50 days of class - were arraigned Tuesday before a superior court judge on infractions that charged the guardians with failing to make sure their kids receive an education.

The infractions, pursued by District Attorney Kamala Harris, carry a $100 fine. If the truancy continues, the next step would be misdemeanor charges of neglecting a child’s education, charges that could land a parent in county jail for up to a year with a fine up to $2,500, Harris said Tuesday.

The parents - Connie Wilson, Jamelia Kellom, Shanae Seastrunk, Kenneth Reed, Chanell Brown and Joshua Pomar - were the first to be prosecuted under stricter enforcement guidelines announced by Harris at the beginning of the school year.

The number of students skipping school in San Francisco has long been above statewide averages and costs the already cash-strapped district more than $5 million in state funding every year. One absence costs the San Francisco Unified School District about $42, according to district data.

Among the most common reasons for truancies, especially among elementary school children, are child care issues, drug abuse by parents, lack of transportation, family abandonment and the students ditching classes, according to school district Superintendant Carlos Garcia.

“You know, little kids, what rights do they have? I think we as a society need to stand up for their rights, the right to an education,” Garcia said.

1. Education is not a right. You don’t have a right to other people’s labor. Your existence doesn’t create an obligation for others to provide you with anything. Taxation is theft, period. 2. The absence wouldn’t cost anyone anything if there wasn’t compulsory government schooling. This whole “your actions cost us all” “problem” only exists because these power hungry, megalomaniacs who think they know better than everyone one else use guns to force people into participating in things they could be doing voluntarily. If the service was so important as these people like to claim why then wouldn’t the free market be able to provide it? If you look at it historically it could… what has changed? Could it be that religious and socialist idealists wanted to control the populous? Could it be that compulsory education was instituted not for the children but those in power who wish to propagandize their utopian values?

Canadian religious discrimination

Posted on June 16th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.catholicexchange.com/…

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

What a bunch of horseshit. People like to point to Canada and many of the EU nations as a bastion of civil liberties. With any amount of research you can see that it’s only the liberties of the secular statists who are protected. This is outright censorship and should be condemned. If people want to combat what some could consider hate speech they should work to ostracize those who speak it. Don’t purchase the media publishing it. Don’t use the threat of violence to get people to not speak… use a superior position to make their ideas appear incorrect.

Japanese healthcare authoritarianism

Posted on June 16th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments »

http://news.scotsman.com/…

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual check-ups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44% of the entire population.

Those exceeding government limits and suffering from a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if, after three months, they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered towards further re-education after six more months.

The limits of 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10% over the next four years and 25% over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.

With the new law, Matsushita has to measure the waistlines of not only its employees but also their families and pensioners. As part of its intensifying efforts, the company has started giving its employees “metabo check” towels that double as tape measures.

Companies like Matsushita must measure the waistlines of at least 80% of their employees and get 10% of those deemed metabolic to lose weight by 2012.

NEC, Japan’s largest maker of PCs, said that if it failed to meet its targets, it could incur £9.7m in penalties.

Penalties and re-education for being too fat? What exactly would this re-education entail? I’d imagine it’s not optional and the fines will just be passed on to the general public.

This whole “problem” goes away by letting people be responsible for themselves and their healthcare.

UK: Crackdown on cigarettes, attack on person responsibility

Posted on May 31st, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 9 Comments »

Next step full prohibition… because “we all pay for your unhealthiness.”



Free Talk Live

© 2008 blog of bile is powered by Wordpress