First, a joke, one I’ve told before:

In long ago Japan or China (or amongst the Eskimos, or something else), a young boy came across his father carry a large basket on his back. In the basket was the boy’s grandfather.

He asked, “Father, where are you taking grandfather?”

“Shh,” said the father. “Grandfather is old and sick. He eats, but he does not earn. I’m taking him to the river, where I will leave him to die. It will be better for all of us.”

“Oh, father,” said the boy. “That is an excellent idea. But be sure to bring the basket home, so that I can use it for you one day.”

And now the two articles that tie in with that story.  The first describes a woman who learns that Medicare won’t pay for pain medicine for her elderly mother:

Since mother’s pharmacy was located in a Wal-Mart, I left the scripts with capable pharmacists and shopped awhile. Returning to pick up her medicines the pharmacist called me to come over and discuss the different medications and their uses and required knowledge. Then he paused and said,

Now, I need to tell you that your mother’s pain medication will have to be purchased by you, as Medicare will not pay for these, as your mother is too old.

Thinking I heard the man wrong, I asked him,

Did I hear you correctly? Did I hear you say my mother is too old for pain medication following surgery?

The druggist, smiling, repeated his previous comment, reiterating that Medicare, at least in his district, refuses to pay for pain medication for seniors, even following surgery.

That’s just one anecdotal story, of course.  I’m sure someone supportive of government run health care would argue that she misunderstood, or that the pharmacist misunderstood, or that the pharmacist was a sadist, or that it was only specific types of medicine and not just any medicine, and so on and so forth.

But what about the situation in which an entire medical group in a country that has socialized medicine rises up to say that the government is killing old people?

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

The article describes the humanitarian motives behind that LCP. I’m willing to believe that. The problem is that the government doesn’t have humanitarian motives. It has guidelines. And as well all know, humans don’t fit into guidelines.  Indeed, the human unwillingness to fit into tight little packages ties into another problem with guidelines:  they are inflexible.  Humans are not.  Another thing that’s fairly flexible is the marketplace.  If too many people complain about watching Mom or Dad starve and dehydrate to death, the market adapts.  The government doesn’t.

Why in the world would Americans want to go even further down this path than they already have?

What is it with these California political women?  In the morning, Pelosi calls insurance companies villain’s as if she’s in some Victorian melodrama.  And this afternoon, Dianne Feinstein arranges from the arrest of a bunch of senior citizens who were trying to speak with her.

It’s a little unclear just exactly what side of the political spectrum the senior citizens waiting in Dianne Feinstein’s office represented, but one thing is clear:  they were not constituents she wanted to see as part of her prep work for Obama Care.  Rather than meeting with them herself (or having a representative meet with them), she therefore had them arrested:

Los Angeles police Sergeant Rich Brunson said Thursday that at least eight people were being taken into custody and would likely be booked for trespassing and released.

Cate Engel, a spokeswoman for the group California Alliance for Retired Americans, says the activists — all between 55 and 87 years old — wanted to talk to Feinstein about strengthening Medicare and using the program as a model for health reform.

The group arrived at Feinstein’s office around noon and refused to leave her conference room until their arrest more than six hours later.

Even if the oldsters were the worst nut cases around, complete with tin foil head wrapping, it was insanely bad politics to have them hauled off by the police.  Those who commented on the story at the SFGate website (whether coming from the statist or the individualist side of the political spectrum) agree with my take on the matter:

rmd2k2:
It amazes me that there are still people out there who think Feinstein gives a blessed frock about anyone except her own self-interest. If these folks really want DiFi’s undivided attention they should hire a lobbyist who can throw around a lot of cash.

rosedarlin:
So what were they arrested for anyway, not leaving her conference room? Shameless to arrest senior citizens wanting to speak to their Senator!

jjmac:
More power to them. I totally feel for these folks who are about to lose what they paid into.

spockhere:
Captain… I suspect they were Protesting the New Death Care Reform… Interesting…

jademessenger:
These are also people who likely voted for her and she serves us, her constituents! How dare her office call the police to arrest constituents! What the hell is happening to this country? These f’ing politicians are paying lip service to us and doing the exact opposite by pandering to industry only!!! They already gave away our entire Treasury to these leeches and they won’t even talk to seniors who want an affordable healthcare policy that’s the same as they’re getting? DiFi is history in my book. She either comes back to her voting base or we’re voting her out in the next election (if there even is one). What a total farce. These pols are ripping us off. I’m sick of it and I’m sick of them. They can all go to hell.
—————————–
Calm down! you should channel your intense anger against the Republicans, Karl Rove and the others who are telling outright LIES against President Obama and his idea of getting healthcare to us.

As to that last one, we were always assured that the anger that characterized the first 8 years of the 21st Century was just because of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Get the government out of the hands of the evil ChimpyBushHitler, the Machiavellian Dick Cheney and the grasping Halliburton, and it would be Utopia R Us, with liberals running through the streets, throwing flowers and singing sweet songs.

Apparently not enough of the BDS crowd got that particular memo.  For them, anger is not so much a matter of principle, as it is a state of mind grounded in perpetual grievance.

UPDATE:  My Mom knew DiFi back in the early 60s, because one of Di’s daughters was in the same preschool as my sister was.  It was a cooperative preschool, with all parents expected to contribute time.  My mom retails two memories of Di:  she was unwilling to contribute time, and she wasn’t friendly.  Sounds as if nothing’s changed.

In today’s New York Times, there’s a lengthy article about the humiliation routinely visited on elderly people who are called “dear” or “sweetie.”  The message conveyed by those terms is demeaning, implying that the person on the receiving end is incompetent, and definitely placing the person in the “one down” position.  The psychic hurt is so great it can create physical health problems.

All of which made me wonder:  What is the health status of that female reporter whom Obama called “Sweetie”? There he is, the luminous man of hope and change, demeaning and belittling a professional woman.  Funnily enough, that little episode (for which Obama apologized) didn’t seem to rile the Times at all.

On a marginally related topic, which is how people address other people, I found peculiar the fact that Obama’s campaign strategist, David Axelrod, refers to him as “Obama.” Not “Barack,” which is a friendship name, or “Sen. Obama,” which is a deference name, but just that lonely last name — “Obama.”  Do any of you refer to an employer with whom you have a very close relationship simply by his last name?  I don’t think so.  It implies a weird deference or distance or even coldness.  I wonder if Obama ever calls Axelrod “sweetie.”