Europe is becoming NAZI

[Ned]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


No, it's because your thread is equating having a public health service with nazism...you really expect me to enter your bizarre blinkered, right-wing trollfest?

Your summary of this thread totally misses the point. I am not surprised you have no comment.

[Ned]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


Come now Provost, you can't deny it’s entertaining.
And as long its Ned posting, there's no harm done.

And there’s the whole freedom of speech thing. Some people are just different, and like to discus politics and history form the right to the wrong side of the spectrum.


Anyway there is always the joy of Socratic irony.
Just show how his opinions contradict themselves, and you may convince him (yeah right!) or at least show your point.

Better.

BTW, I am not the only one who sees the link between what Europe is now doing or contemplating doing and its NAZI past. A simple google will show a lot of discussion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_



Even with unethical choices like pulling the plug, a universal health system saves at least some lives unlike a “let the poor die” system.

At least here in the US, the poor are provided health care by the government. It's the middle class that suffers.

What universal health care will do is provide a mechanism for the young and healthy to subsidize the old and sick. Kinda like social security.

[BeBMan]

Europe has no nazi past, Germany has, and even there it's (surprise) only a certain period, surely an important one, but also a rather short one on historic level, so only part of it's past, not "the" past itself. If you speak of a general European nazi past because of some details, you can speak of a general US (or whatever) nazi past because of certain details too.

[Ned]

BeBro, true, not all of Europe had NAZI's or their collaborators, but a good portion did. For example, SS divisions were raised in many countries other than Germany. Does Europe deny its roots to the Romans even though a large portion of today's Europe was never part of the Empire?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned
BeBro, true, not all of Europe had NAZI's or their collaborators, but a good portion did. For example, SS divisions were raised in many countries other than Germany.

There were nazi sympathizers in the US too - does this mean the US has a nazi past?

And btw, not all in the Waffen SS were volunteers. Earlier they certainly were mainly volunteers, but over time it turned out that there weren't enough, and that the Waffen SS needed more replacements since its units had often very high casualties. To counter this people were (in increasing numbers) simply drafted/forced into the Waffen SS, in Germany as well as in other Euro countries, esp. in the later years of the war.

Collaboration was certainly a problem, but not a problem of the majorities in the occupied countries - there was also resistance in different degrees and various forms as you surely know.

Does Europe deny its roots to the Romans even though a large portion of today's Europe was never part of the Empire?

The problem is to find a reasonable approach. If you link everything with everything than let's blame the US for the inquisition, because surely Americans wouldn't deny their European roots.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Well known prejudices?

You're the only nazi apologist I've encountered in the past 20 years. It goes with the territory.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sandman
The NHS is funded centrally, so poor (and unhealthy) areas get more money. Sometimes much more.

Well, the Nuffield paper clearly refers to inequities in healthcare resulting from "devolution" from central to local authority so evidently some areas do get less money.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You're the only nazi apologist I've encountered in the past 20 years. It goes with the territory.

Now that is offensive, you cur.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Well, the Nuffield paper clearly refers to inequities in healthcare resulting from "devolution" from central to local authority so evidently some areas do get less money.

My earlier statement was probably over-simplified. Or just plain wrong.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


The Europeans are now doing, or consider doing, that which they once condemned as barbaric. There are many in the US who would still consider the whole idea barbaric. Rush Limbaugh is one. My wife is another. I personally am not totally offended by this and might support it if the US ever adopts its own version of national health care.

Whether this was related to NAZI Germany's "national health care system," though, is now questioned by Dr. Strangelove who flatly stated that the reasons the NAZI's killed the deformed and retarded had nothing to do with cost to Germany's national health care system, but had everything to do with an effort to stop them from breeding.

The funny thing is that Bishop Butler wasn't even a member of the panel that wrote the Nuffield paper. After Googling his name I found that he's actually rather conservative for an Anglican bishop, He's written some pieces critical of the current trend towards permissiveness towards gays and also has written some pieces on "orthodoxy". In view of these facts I wonder if his letter wasn't a deliberate attempt to stir up controversy.
You can use the link I provided above to read the summary of the paper. At over 150 pages long most of you probably won't want to read the whole thing. In my interpretation the paper does not advocate the use of cost factors as a major determinant when making decisions on witholding or withdrawing life support of a premature infant, It assigns the responsibility for making such decisions to the parents and the physicians. It mandates that physicians must fully inform parents of the likely outcome of the choices being considered. It does advocate a set of guidelines for making decisions based on the infant's gestational age and physical health. Briefly it advocates full life support as needed to infants born at 25 weeks gestational age and older, but advises that such efforts should not be undertaken when an infant is born at less than 22 weeks gestational age. it provides guidelines for decision making for infants between 22 and 15 weeks gestational age.

I hope I'm not putting a damper on anyone's style by providing real information. Carry on.

Do any of our British members know anything about Bishop Butler? What is his reputation?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sandman


My earlier statement was probably over-simplified. Or just plain wrong.

Well don't beat yourself up over it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Now that is offensive, you cur.

woof, woof.