So socialist toynbee advocates killing the handicapped to save money. Truly sordid.
Polly on Babies
In
7 responses
-
Sordid, undoubtedly, but at least it is consistent. If you abrogate your responsibilites to the state and the state pays for everything including handicapped children, then the state may start to make decisions about how it might manage its costs….
-
Surely you’re not suggesting, General, that having an all-powerful state is a recipe for unaccountable abuse? What in the history of Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea and China has led you to that conclusion?
-
Staggering. This is the woman who defends high taxes on the basis that if you don’t have them, you won’t help the poor, and they’ll suffer. Who thinks that parading an elephant through London for a million quid is worthwhile.
But spend £14,000 a week on those most in need, those who literally can’t help themselves. Oh no, can’t do that. -
Surely Polly can’t be so dim she doesn’t actually see she is confirming that socialism and fascism are the same evil?
Oh, wait a bit – it’s Polly Toynbee we’re talking about. Sorry. I take back my comment. -
Tim, surely you don’t believe in healthcare being free at the point of delivery at all? What happens when the bills aren’t paid?
-
Except, of course, that she didn’t as anyone reading her feature with an open mind would see. In such birth situations there are very hard choices to be made and she, commenting on the recent Nuffield Bioethics report, examined them perfectly reasonably and correctly and drew on different viewpoints to illustrate her take on the situation.
If you disagree with her viewpoint then argue by all means, put an opposing point of view, criticise positively, do anything which gives a tiny hint that you might, just might, have a flicker of intelligence rather than, as these shrill, empty and plain silly complaints suggest, be utterly lacking in anything between your ears. -
Why can’t everyone see that the problem isn’t that people have differing ideas as to how to address an extremely difficult choice? Rather, it’s that whatever that choice might have been made is transformed into a choice–and a financial burden–for all by the very fact of the state’s intervention into and provision of health care.
The state cannot make everyone rich or healthy (or happy); at the best, it can make some richer, healthier, or happier–but only at net loss in the magnitudes of all three, to be borne principally by those who would have achieved greater amounts of all three by their own endeavors (and decisions).
Leave a Reply