British Drinking and NHS

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...MzZTk5YjhjZTU=

Quote:

The British government recently unveiled plans for a massive crackdown on “excessive drinking,” particularly among the middle class. It will include all of the familiar tactics of public health officials: dire new warnings on wine bottles, public-awareness campaigns, scolding from men and women in lab coats.

But the public response has been a bit more strident than what we’re used to over here. Boris Johnson, a member of Parliament and a conservative journalist, writes in The Telegraph: “I am told that the drinks industry is in two minds. Some say capitulate and agree to the ‘voluntary’ code; some say fight and force (the government) to try to bring forward legislation. I say fight, fight, fight. Fight against these insulting, ugly and otiose labels.”

Sarah Vine, writing in the Times, is even more passionate, decrying a:

... pernicious new Puritanism that is slowly squeezing the life and soul out of Britain. Ye gods, as my grandmother used to say, almost all the middle classes have left is their glass of wine in the evening. ... Because let’s face it, this Government is doing its best to make our lives about as miserable as any pox-raddled Hogarthian whore’s. Utter the word ‘middle class’ in Whitehall and watch their greedy little pimps’ eyes light up with pound signs. Behold the British middle-classes — a docile, law-abiding army of tax slaves. Hurrah, let’s blow it all on some more social workers in Newcastle.

As blessedly entertaining as all this is, some might wonder why the Brits are so exercised about a bunch of warning labels. After all, political correctness has been worse over there for quite a while. Police have been known to arrest school kids for insulting their friends. All of England is preparing for a smoking ban that will include “smoking police” making raids on establishments violating the law. The streets of Old Blighty are festooned with hundreds of thousands of closed-circuit television cameras. And, whereas once these cameras were used for antiterrorism, police in some jurisdictions have actually outfitted them with loudspeakers so they can, like the voice of God, tell pedestrians to pick up their litter and generally behave like good “tax slaves.” You’d think warning labels on vino would seem as uncontroversial as adding green vegetables to the prison cafeteria menu.

One answer might be that this is merely the straw that breaks the camel’s already strained back. Another might be rage at a late hit from the exiting government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Another might be that the Brits can take “nanny state” intrusions in the name of law and order, but if you go after their booze, it’s time for a glorious revolution. Yet another might be that Britain’s underclass seems increasingly unredeemable, and rather than give up on it, the government feels the need to ratchet up the infantilization of the many in order to fix the few.

All of these, and many other interpretations, have merit. But there’s another explanation with some salience for Americans bemusedly — or enviously — watching Britain turn into a penal colony with whacky TV and a line of heredity wardens called monarchs.

Britain still subscribes to a system where health care is for the most part socialized. When the bureaucrat-priesthood of the National Health Service decides that a certain behavior is unacceptable, the consequences potentially involve more than scolding. For example, in 2005, Britain’s health service started refusing certain surgeries for fat people. An official behind the decision conceded that one of the considerations was cost. Fat people would benefit from the surgery less, and so they deserved it less. As Tony Harrison, a British health-care expert, explained to the Toronto Sun at the time, “Rationing is a reality when funding is limited.”

But it’s impossible to distinguish such cost-cutting judgments from moral ones. The reasoning is obvious: Fat people, smokers and — soon — drinkers deserve less health care because they bring their problems on themselves. In short, they deserve it. This is a perfectly logical perspective, and if I were in charge of everybody’s health care, I would probably resort to similar logic.

But I’m not in charge of everybody’s health care. Nor should anyone else be. In a free-market system, bad behavior will still have high costs personally and financially, but those costs are more likely to borne by you and you alone. The more you socialize the costs of personal liberty, the more license you give others to regulate it.

Universal health care, once again all the rage in the United States, is an invitation for scolds to become nannies. I think many Brits understand this all too well, which is one reason why they want to fight the scolds here and now.

It's an interesting perspective and a good outline of why free-market proponents consider NHS an unjust system. His free-market example is a bit misleading, however. The reality is that a free healthcare market regulates behavior by ratcheting up costs for bad decisions. The more unhealthy you are, the more your healthcare costs will be. This is how insurance companies are capable of regulating behavior by setting premiums, and the overall cash-in-hand transactions would pile up for the most unhealthy. In the end, if you can pay, or if you can go to a charity hospital, you won't be denied service.

The significant distinction between regulation of behavior in a free market and a socialized system is that the one of the two is unjust. Why? Because in a socialized system, government social workers determine who receives care, as opposed to providers. The result of this is the situation that British drinkers currently fear. That any healthcare costs they may create as drinkers won't be treated since they would be considered burdens on the system. The reason that denial of service is unjust in the case of a socialized system is that drinkers, smokers, and fat people will be denied service despite being required to continue paying into the system. The end result taxes those denied social service well beyond the real cost of their care.

In a free market, however, those denied service aren't required to pay into a system.

Is it right to allow the government to ration healthcare, and determine who is and isn't priority based on their demographics as opposed to the ability to pay?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The stupid thing about arguing that smokers and drinkers cost too much to treat is that the tax revenue from alcohol and cigarettes over here is massively more than the cost of treating those of us who abuse ourselves. Smokers and drinkers pay for the NHS many times over, that's why they don't just outright ban smoking, it'd bankrupt the government.

I think generally though, there's a big backlash growing over here against the nanny state new labour have created. Ironically, it's fucking pointless because street crime continues to rise, as does recreational drug use. The useless fucks have completely failed to address any of the real problems we have in our society at present. That's the problem with having a country run by spin doctors and media analysts, rather than elected politicians. Thank fuck I live in a rebellious middle class town where the police will do anything for a quiet life...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This is clearly an abuse of the Human rights Act and the ECHR Article 2 which cannot be derrogated from in anyway. If you don't want to treat a smoker then why should they contribute towards the NHS if they are going to be given the boot. There have been cases in the Newspaper where patients have been told 'sorry fatty but its your own fault'.

The Teenage drinking culture is rampant here not helped by Mr Blair and his 24 hour pubs and clubs, all these fucking chavs on a bender every Friday night. Labor causes a HooH HaaH but in the end they will do nothing they want Gordon to line his pockets. If it were me I'd have all Alcohol carry huge health risk warnings in a list form and ban all form of advertising just like cigarettes.

The reclassification of Cannabis is one of the worst things to have happened under the Labour Government, the rates at which mental illness caused by drug use is simply alarming.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

In general, I can see the theory behind the idea that the NHS can be somewhat selective about its patients. Perhaps if the idea would be to make people realise that spending ridiculous (and rising) amounts to fuel their cigarette and/or alcohol addiction means no treatment for future related diseases, it would make sense. However, this is idiotic of me.

In agreement with what Shin has said, those of us who do drink and smoke make up one hell of a lot of their budget. It's income the government can't afford to lose, and yet despite paying this money we are not entitled to health services?

We're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't. If you are refused treatment on the NHS, then it may be a life or death matter of finding private treatment, which charges extortionate amounts. People just can't afford it.

EDIT: also, think about how much money drinkers/smokers are saving the government in terms of pensions; we'll die young, thus lowering the budget

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?