The Craziness of Postponing Deaths and Expecting NHS Savings

If the Government really, really wanted to reduce NHS costs, it would stop ‘saving the lives’ of people who are in the first stage of dying. It would stop wasting vast amounts of money on keeping people who are very old alive.

By saying that, I do not justify it. I mention it only because it illustrates the ‘cognitive dissonance’ of the politics of Health.

When my wife was last in hospital (and I have noticed it before), I was struck by the number of very old people who occupy hospital beds, and by the number of very old people who were being ferried around the corridors. Specifically, because of the complications of Multiple Sclerosis, herself was on the ‘complex care’ ward. You would think that such a ward would have numerous young people with severe problems. That was not the case. Almost all the patients were very old.

Not for a moment am I saying that such people should not be cared for. Not at all. What I am saying is that the costs of the NHS are not being properly advertised. Note that word – advertised. THE PEOPLE can be mislead by the omission of facts, just as much as by the commission of facts.

Tobacco Control delights in stating that it ‘saves lives’. That is utter rot. At best, taking into consideration Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, it postpones deaths.

In Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’,  almost all the doctors lived into their sixties at least. The heavy smoking doctors cost society, in the form of pensions, care and ill-health, very little because they pegged out not long after pensionable age. It was the non-smoking doctors who cost society the greatest amount of money, both in pensions and health care.


What is important about that situation, which is TRUE, is that no one talks about it. You would think that the BBC would have documentaries about the longevity and health cost of jogging old people, and how they accumulate their pensions for the benefit of their children. Nothing is said. That is ‘dis-information’. But that ‘dis-information’ cannot be avoided since TELLING THE TRUTH would upset the political apple-cart.

The reality is, despite their fine words, politicians do not know how to make changes. They rely upon ‘experts’, in every field, to tell them what to do.

That is where the EU breaks down decisively. It is just the same as the UN and the WHO. Everything is wonderful and if anything goes wrong, it can be ignored and glossed over because no one is responsible to THE PEOPLE.

The EU is dying – in its present form. We need to get out because it was always Elitist. Cameron et al are ‘Elitists’. They pride themselves on being ‘special’.

But the EU is on its deathbed. It is cruel to forcibly keep it alive.



7 Responses to “The Craziness of Postponing Deaths and Expecting NHS Savings”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    I have often wondered about this myself, it just seems so illogical. I hope nobody tries to keep me alive if I become too ill physicall or mentally or just too old to take care of myself. Acceptance of death just seems to be too hard for some people who seem to think ‘ healthy living ‘ will defer it indefinitely.

    • junican Says:

      It is the fact that no one actually wants to exchange life on Earth, which we know for sure, for Heaven, which is uncertain. I am 76 this year. I cannot survive for much longer. Do I look forward to Heaven? I am not sure. But I know that my time here is coming to an end.
      Would NOT enjoying tobacco, having central heating, wearing warm clothes in winter, NOT drinking alcohol make any difference?
      Why is it that the puritans care about the future of other people? Why do they not concern themselves with their own fortunes and futures?

      • cherie79 Says:

        It is a bit strange to realise that we are in the last years of our lives. I don’t quite know what I believe, not the organised religion idea of Heaven but there does seem to be something that goes on, I have never had any fear of death and tend to believe we are all date stamped anyway, no matter how we live. Some very strange things happened after my husbands sudden death that really made me think.

      • garyk30 Says:

        Being a bit of a gambler, I am going with there being a God and a Heaven over being an atheist.

        If I am wrong, I have lost nothing and still had the pleasure of a good moral life.

        If I am right, I will have eternal joy and happiness.

        If the atheist is right, they have gained nothing.

        If the atheist is wrong, they are doomed to eternal damnation with eternal suffering.

      • Rose Says:

        Gary, about that smoking, a word or two from James 1st and Head of the Church of England.

        “And now good Countrey men let us (I pray you) consider, what honour or policie can moove us to imitate the barbarous and beastly maners of the wilde, godlesse, and slavish Indians, especially in so vile and stinking a custome?”

        “Thus having, as I truste, sufficiently answered the most principall arguments that are used in defence of this vile custome, it rests onely to informe you what sinnes and vanities you commit in the filthie abuse thereof.

        First, are you not guiltie of sinnefull and shamefull lust? (for lust may bee as well in any of the senses as in feeling) that although you bee troubled with no disease, but in perfect health, yet can you neither be merry at an Ordinarie, nor lascivious in the Stewes, if you lacke Tobacco to provoke your appetite to any of those sorts of recreation, lusting after it as the children of Israel did in the wildernesse after Quailes?

        Secondly it is, as you use or rather abuse it, a branche of the sinne of drunkennesse, which is the roote of all sinnes:”

        “Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof?

        In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned.

        A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.”

        And don’t be so smug.

      • garyk30 Says:

        He must have changed his mind as he has said nothing of late.

  2. junican Says:

    The whole basis if ‘Gods’, since time immemorial, is that we are conscious beings who can control ourselves and our environment. Our problem is that we are tied to our bodies. Why should there not be beings, much more powerful than we are, which are not tied to bodies?
    The second thing is the existence of the universe. Where did it come from? How did it start?
    It is a small step to link the two ideas. Judaism, and so Christianity, got rid of ‘the Gods’ plural, and imagined only one God. But there are also angels, prophets and saints.

    My own view is that you do not need to ‘believe’ either one way or the other. What is important is how you behave. If you are kind to other people and suffer adversity with courage, then you have done your best. If you are selfish and wicked, then there may be consequences. In catholic doctrine, there is a ‘rule’ called ‘baptism of desire’. In theory, according to the bible, you must be baptised to be able to go to heaven. A heathen who has never heard of Christianity and lives in a jungle in Africa, can be ‘saved’ by living a good life.

    All of the imaginings of ‘the afterlife’ are based upon the idea of an afterlife which is similar to living on Earth and being tied to a body. Why should that be so? We cannot even begin to imagine what an afterlife which is not tied to a body can be like. One of the reasons that we cannot imagine such an existence is that we live in ‘time’. It takes ‘time’ to try to imagine such an existence. How can we imagine ‘timelessness’ when we have to take time to imagine? We have to imagine, even though imagining takes time, a state of being which we cannot know or imagine. Catch 22.
    So live your life and try to be kind to others, and accept adversity. You can do no more.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: