The Big Think

May 24, 2013

I Guess the “Universal” in “Universal Health Care” Means Something Different

Filed under: Politics — jasony @ 10:14 am

You know mankind has truly “evolved” when the nation who once spent trillions of dollars and millions of lives to stop Hitler’s genocides now elects demi-Hitlers of their own.

You see, things have gotten a wee bit pricey in the land of socialized health care. There’s just not enough tax money and medicine and hospital beds to go around. One leader’s solution?

Kill off the disabled children. Like animals.

Colin Brewer is a UK politician. He stepped down in disgrace after saying publicly that “disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down.”

He was re-elected this month.

He was re-elected this month.

And his first move after gaining public support and public office once more? To detail, in graphic terms, just how disabled children should be killed.

In an interview with the Disability News Service, Councillor Brewer said that perhaps we should be culling disabled children like deformed lambs, which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.

‘If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it,” he said. “They get rid of it. Bang.”

Bang. Disabled people are just too expensive to care for, so they just have to go.

“We are just animals,” Brewer continued. “You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with.”

When asked if there was any difference between killing a lamb or a human being he simply said, according to Disability News, “I think the cost has got to be evaluated.”

“It is not something I would like to do, but there is only so much in the bucket,” he reportedly said. “If you are talking about giving services to the community or services to the individual, the balance has got to be struck.”

What a progressive hero.

What eventually happens to Universal Health Care when you run out of Other People’s Money. You can’t say you haven’t been warned.

1 Comment »

  1. This is, of course, reprehensible. But it’s not the outcome of Universal Health Care so much as it is the outcome of the philisophical conviction that “We are just animals.” If that’s true, then as unsavory as it sounds, it’s a reasonable approach to dealing with disabled children. (And with limited resources needing to be allocated to care for health needs, the equation is no different without UHC than with it; it’s just who gets the money for care that’s decided differently.)

    Of course, those of us who are Christians (and those who haven’t thought naturalism through to its logical conclusions) hold that people are different that beasts, and even a disabled child is ennobled by its humanity. While snuffing out a deformed animals life is sad because we have reverence for life, snuffing out a human being’s life is more than that because of the divine spark that’s part of being created in God’s image. If we dispense with that, and posit that we are no more than animals, then the moral distinction is gone, and what’s good for the goose is good for the person.

    Comment by seanmctex — May 26, 2013 @ 8:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress