Against the CRPD

This is a response to a conversation about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which started with a link to this article.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does everything the Ten Specific Problems says it does (with one exception: Point 8 says “Article 25 on Education” when it means Article 24).

You say: “Maybe if I write in all caps.. hang on..

NO U.N. TREATY CAN SUPERCEDE U.S. LAWS. EVERY SINGLE THING THAT THE GOP HATES ABOUT THIS IS TWISTED AROUND, AND THEY’RE PREYING UPON PEOPLE THAT DON’T KNOW THAT FACT.”

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause” says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

So, in a sense, you’re right, it doesn’t supersede US law. As a Treaty it instead BECOMES law, the “supreme law of the land”. So in effect you’re very, very wrong.
The same does not hold true for any other signatory.

The Ten Problems article does get slightly hyperbolic, it points out some of the extent of power that is actually handed over. So you say “Then again.. If someone thinks the U.S. Gov’t is going to make every citizen install a wheelchair ramp on their own home.. I think my words may be falling on deaf ears.” No-one’s saying they will. And I think you realise that. The article is saying that this Treaty would give them the power to say that. And while that power might not be abused this year, or the next, who can say that down the line they won’t find some way to? And why on Earth should we even allow that possibility?

So you say you’ve read the entire text of the Convention. I have no reason to disbelieve you. You have yet to adequately refute even one of the Ten Specific Problems.

Having been beaten around the head with the Convention for the Rights of the Child (which thankfully the US hasn’t signed up for yet) and its “best interests of the child” language, I know how harmful that can be. I may not have experienced it to its fullest extent, but what I have experienced still makes me see red three years later. As someone who spends a lot of time around my children, I know that the people who know what’s in the best interests of my children are me and my wife, and the other adults we live with. With such a treaty, who decides what’s in the “best interests of the child”? That would fall to whoever’s making policies this week. And that’s not limited to those in elected office. That’s suddenly a lot of fingers in the pie. Just that on its own is not in the best interests of my children, even if I had no major disagreements with any of them about anything. I know from experience that the language of the CRC (repeated in the CRPD) interferes with parental rights.

Most people in England are of the status quo, and don’t come under the microscope of those whose profession is the “best interests of the child”. We didn’t stray very far from the status quo, and did. Even by doing what is scientifically provably in the best interests of our child. If Problem 7 were the only problem with the CRPD, I would still be completely against it. You like it, move to England. Me? I moved away from England. Not because of this shit, this shit just made me glad to leave. I’m against it not just for the US, but for every other country.

I read the article that Darin posted that kicked off this thread. It has no content. I mean, yes, it says the 38 people who voted against the Treaty. It uses the word “lie” 4 times. It has 5 quotes it claims are lies, but it does nothing to back up its claims. I have to conclude that the writer of the article doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I mean, the Supremacy Clause proves the Santorum quote and the J Michael Smith quote weren’t lies. I don’t get what about the Lee quote was supposed to be a lie. Is he really there to “pass as many pieces of legislation as possible”? (not particularly a Santorum fan, but grateful he voted against this)

In your post you were very rabid against the GOP. I’m not a particular fan of the GOP. I didn’t think Romney would have made a good president. I didn’t like Junior Bush. In his second term, I heard some of the arguments for him, but I still didn’t particularly like him. Towards the end of his presidency, I found out about Libertarian ideals, and I’ve basically identified as that since then. I don’t want to impose crap on you, I would like you to return the favour. If individuals in society can’t be trusted to look after each other, then individuals in Government, who are subject to various forms of bribery, can’t either.

So you can tell me what you want in as condescending a manner what you want. Still waiting for the slightest shred of an argument, let alone evidence.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Whay nationalised health-care is not compassionate

Also, in being compassionate, one can choose where one’s resources go. Not all healthcare is created equal.

For example, the World Health Organization states that there is no medical reason for a caesarean rate above “10-15%”. That language implies they were hedging, so as not to offend too much places with caesarean rates higher than 10%. A community in Tennessee has proved that a C-section rate of less than 2% is possible. Your local hospital? An NHS hospital in England the rate’s more likely to be around 25%, I think one we went to had a 27% rate. In America, the national rate is more like 30%, some hospitals go a lot higher. More than double the national rate.

Of course, there’s a complete difference in ethos between the two kinds of places. The place with the low rate wants to help the mother give birth, and knows what is necessary at what time. The medicalised model treats pregnancy as like an illness: oh, it’s hurting, let’s give you a drug for that. Oh, that drug slowed things down, let’s give you a drug to speed it up. Oh, that makes it hurt more, let’s give you a different drug inserted by drip in your back so you can’t move. Oh, you’re taking to long, let’s cut you open. One is health care, the other is sabotage (and reminds me of this clip, from about 40 seconds to about 2 minutes).

Which one would I rather give money to? The former, obviously. If I were funding it for myself, or for other people, hands down I would give the money to the people who actually know about birth. There are places around the country that offer a true midwifery model of healthcare like this.

If I went the insurance route, which type of place would they pay for? The latter. If my money is forcibly extracted from me by the government, which would they give my money to? The latter. In England, when we used the NHS, even the midwives who came out to houses were tied in with the hospital system, because it’s all the same structure. If, when I was in England, I wanted to go with the model with a lower rate of major abdominal surgery, I would have to pay for it myself AND pay for the shitty service that I wasn’t using, and wouldn’t recommend to anybody else either.

We hear so often that Fat is a Bad Thing. Give this a read. Weight is not an indicator of health. It’s an indicator of weight. And yet, fat people are treated differently in the medical system than other people are. So, going back to the birth thing, if you’re fat, you have no chance of using the birthing pool they tempted you in with. You’re a lot more likely to be in the 25+% that ends up with major abdominal surgery (and most likely, unnecessarily). One hears horror stories of fat people going to the doctors and being told to lose weight before the doctor will even listen to what’s wrong, when the fat person has gone in about a suspected broken ankle. Weight is a genetic trait. Discriminating based on weight is no better than discriminating based on race or skin colour.

Not all doctors are that stupid, but with nationalised health care, I can’t opt out of funding the stupid ones. I can’t choose to fund just the places that can see past the “Obesity epidemic!” propaganda sponsored by the Government (in turn sponsored by those who profit from fat-shaming).

No thank you. This violence against pregnant women is not something I want to support. This violence against fat people is not something I want to support. If this government has its was and I choose to not support these things, then they will do violence to me. I do not see how this can be described as “compassionate”.

And if those who feel no responsibility towards the unborn lives they’ve created want to kill them on my dollar, I can’t opt out. When they legalise euthanasia, and then they start wanting me to pay for it, will I be able to opt out? No.

In England, every so often the dissatisfaction of the nurses gets aired in the media, how they are overworked and underpaid. I have an aunt and a sister who are nurses in the NHS, I know this. My sister works different shifts, but they don’t rotate them in any sane order (like starting with earlies, moving to middles and then to nights, then starting over again) she’s moved all over the show in any order. That’s not exactly healthy. There’s often talk in the media about the NHS having too much middle-management, and every so often someone’s hired to figure out how to cut costs, but the thick layer of bureaucracy isn’t a part that gets cut. The vast amounts of money thrown at the NHS doesn’t trickle down well to the floor workers (it’s not like we need well-rested people working on us or anything), it accumulates in bureaucracy and the pockets of the drug companies. And with the government footing the bill, the inefficiency is not going to go away. There’s no incentive. People will use all their budgets so their budgets won’t get cut. You hear the same story in the education system and in the military. At least in a for-profit system that layer of crap can be cut. A nationalised health-care system has the worst of all worlds.

I touched on finances when I was talking about fat and birth, but there’s more financey-stuff that ties in with those, that it seemed proper to postpone until now.
When you pay for someone to fix your car, or your roof, or your plumbing, there’s a certain relationship that you have with your contractor. You trust the plumber to know about plumbing, that he’ll fix what needs fixing and won’t break anything else. If you’re not happy with the work he does – if he’s not on-site nearly as much as he’s charging you for, you can impose economic sanctions on him. You didn’t do the work, you’re not getting paid. With a doctor, you trust him to give you good medical advice, and you pay him for it. If you’re that unfortunate person who’s fat and goes to a doctor for ankle problems and he tells you to lose weight, implying as part of that more exercise (true story), and it’s not you paying but the insurance company or the government, there’s nothing you can do. You might be able to find another doctor (if insurance or the government let you), but there’s no incentive for the bad doctor to learn to give better service.

I am relieved that I no longer contribute to the upkeep of the NHS. I’ve come across good doctors and bad doctors, and had good experiences and bad, heard good stories and bad, and in the end? The whole thing wallows in mediocrity. The bad points are part of the system as a whole, and the good points don’t outweigh them. Nationalising the US system won’t make it better, it will retain its current problems and inherit those particular to the new structure.

Read also how the health care law threatens parental rights.

Given that the current problems are violent against a great many people (I’ve shown against the fat and against the pregnant, I’m sure there’s more), and the enforced nature of the new taxation is violent against everyone (if you don’t comply we’ll get you), it is against my conscience to be “for” such a system. I wouldn’t wish it even on people I didn’t like.

If you find it compassionate to support such a system, that is fine. But please understand that as quality of care goes, it sucks. As value for money goes, it sucks. As treatment of workers goes, it sucks. Forcing me at gunpoint to pay for this (which is what taxation is) is not compassionate. Taking away my personal responsibility to the sick and poor is not compassionate. Taking their personal response to me or to the institution or person that I personally give money to, is not compassionate. Making more people (staff and patients) dependent on the government, is not compassionate. With this form of “compassion”, everybody loses out, one way or the other.

I feel less compassionate towards the poor and the sick, because the government has taken responsibility for the poor and sick. The poor and sick feel entitled to these benefits, because they are now a “right”, not a gracious gift. This is what I was trying to convey in the previous paragraph: I could give my friend money for treatment, and he would be grateful to me. I could give money to a birthing centre so some people I’ll never know could have quality care and not have to pay for it themselves (or not the full amount, anyway), and they won’t be grateful to me (left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and all that), but they’ll know they’re not getting the care at the full price, so they’ll be grateful to the birth centre for giving them the grant/discount/whatever. If care is funded by the government, the patient won’t be grateful to everyone in the country, it’s impossible. “Thank you, random stranger, for paying for my cancer treatment…” it goes from blessing and being blessed to burdening and being demanding, and that really doesn’t seem like an improvement.

I don’t doubt your motives, but nationalised health care is not the “best thing since sliced bread”, it is not the shiny cure-for-all-ills thing that people think it is. You’re free to make your decisions, of course, but leave others free to make their own decisions as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment