Elderly Patients suffer Poor Care and Neglect in the NHS as Hospital Staff finds them too Burdensome

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

One of the big problems with national health care is old people.  They cost a lot.  And consume a lot of the limited resources available.  Especially with their repeat hospital stays.  Becoming too great a burden for some hospital personnel.  Leading to poor care.  And neglect.  As this family in Wales experienced (see NHS neglect: Calls for inquiry after woman’s death by India Pollock posted 7/25/2013 on BBC News Wales).

“It was absolutely appalling,” a relative said. “Quite often I’d go in to visit her and I would find that she had been left nil by mouth for several days until she was weak and wasn’t able to lift a glass of water to her mouth, she was dehydrated.”

Another family member said: “We sat by her bedside until her tongue swelled up and cracked and her lips split open for want of hydration.

“She became delirious at first, then barely conscious, almost coma-like…”

The health board said it would conduct a Protection of Vulnerable Adults (Pova) investigation.

However, the board did not contact the family for six months. It apologised and said that lessons had been learnt but no Pova proceedings took place.

When the woman was readmitted in 2012, relatives said they discovered the same problems.

They reported their concerns to social services which is when they learnt that a Pova investigation had not actually taken place.

Pova proceedings were then used and a number of allegations were proved.

The health board admitted giving unnecessary sedation and failing to administer prescribed medication.

The board also failed to care for the woman’s amputated leg.

A family member added: “We explained how her prosthesis could be taken off and showed them the bag of clean amputation socks that we’d taken in for her.

“We also gave them oils to treat her leg to ensure it didn’t become inflamed. We explained it all to the staff.

“When I complained that she was having unnecessary sedation, they said it was because she was screaming at night. When I asked her why she was screaming at night, she told me that they hadn’t taken her leg off in the two weeks that she’d been there.

“A member of staff pulled back the bedclothes and sat by the side of her bed and took her leg off with me, and took off the urine sodden socks that had been left on her amputation for two weeks and he turned away in disgust, holding the urine sodden socks at arms’ length.”

Recommendations were put in place, but the family said there were similar issues when the woman was admitted to Neath Port Talbot hospital in August 2012.

Then she was transferred to the Princess of Wales Hospital, where she died in November.

The family said they were told by staff that they were stopping her medication as she was dying of pneumonia.

However, a post mortem examination was carried out and the coroner’s report said her lungs were free of chronic disease, and that she died of a heart attack…

Peter Tyndall, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales, said: “It’s absolutely tragic for the individual and for the family, and I think although there are lots of people who have very good experiences of the NHS in Wales, there are still too many cases of this kind occurring.”

He said there had been a 30% increase in complaints about the NHS in Wales in a year.

This is our future.  What we can expect under Obamacare.  As the government moves us closer and closer to national health care.  Poor care.  Neglect.  And an unfeeling bureaucracy.  Who will look at our loved ones with contempt.  Annoyed by their excessive health care needs.  Looking for any opportunity to withhold their medications so they just hurry up and die.  So they can go and treat less burdensome patients.

You won’t find the phrase ‘death panel’ in Obamacare.  Just as you won’t find them in the NHS.  But they have one.  It’s called the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient.  A death panel by another name.  Which lets patients supposedly die with dignity.  After consulting with the patient’s family.  But that didn’t happen with this patient in Wales.  And, sadly, it’s not an isolated incident.

For those of you who wanted Obamacare, for those of you who want national health care, this is what you have to look forward too.  It’s not utopia.  It’s trying to do more with less.  Which is just a recipe for poor care and neglect.  For the only way to cut costs so you can provide health care to more people is by giving everybody a less costly and a lower quality level of care.  It’s simply math.  The more people you treat the less each person gets.  And things like this become a little too common in the NHS.  As they will under Obamacare.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS rations Emergency Services in Wales because of a Doctor Shortage

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 25th, 2013

Week in Review

The opponents of national health care say it will lead to doctor shortages.  And the rationing of services.  Because the costs of health care will continue to rise as the population ages.  Which will require stretching limited resources to cover a growing number of seniors entering the health care system.  Just as fewer young people are entering the workforce to pay for them.

Fewer people working means less tax revenue.  While health expenditures rise due to that aging population.  The health authority will have no choice but to cut costs.  And that means paying doctors less.  Which will, of course, discourage people from becoming doctors.  Leading to a doctor shortage.  Is this just conjecture?  Not quite.  It’s an observation of what’s happening in the United Kingdom as the NHS struggles with a doctor shortage (see South Wales specialist hospital care plans to be revealed by Owain Clarke posted 5/22/2013 on BBC News Wales).

Health officials believe some services are spread too thinly and should be centralised in four or five hospitals instead.

They include accident and emergency and care for premature babies and children…

They argue that the changes are essential to ensure hospital care meets UK-wide professional standards and to deal with issues such as a shortage of doctors, an ageing population and financial pressures.

This is what we can expect under Obamacare.  And whatever Obamacare evolves into.  For the U.S. already has an aging population.  And financial pressures.  All they need is for the government to start cutting costs and they’ll have a doctor shortage, too.  And then the U.S. will begin to centralize emergency services into fewer hospitals.  Just as the British are doing.  As their doctor shortage causes them to ration their emergency services.  Just as the opponents of Obamacare say will happen in the United States.  Just as it is happening in the United Kingdom.  Because this is the inevitable destination of national health care.  Doctor shortages.  And rationing.



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The NHS is Rationing Health Care to give Everyone the Same Quality of Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 18th, 2013

Week in Review

We have Obamacare because there was a crisis in American health care.  Or so said the proponents of national health care.  Not everyone had equal access to the same high-quality care some people had.  The opponents of Obamacare said a quasi-national health care system wouldn’t change that.  All it would do is stretch limited resources over more people.  Ultimately reducing the quality of care for everyone.  Like in the NHS.  Where they are closing emergency departments in south Wales because they don’t have the resources to staff them all at the same level (see Wales NHS: Abandon south Wales A&E shake-up, say Conservatives posted 5/14/2013 on BBC News Wales).

The NHS is due to announce a cut in number of specialist A&E departments in south Wales from seven to four or five.

Officials say the current range of services can no longer be provided safely at all hospitals.

They say the planned changes, due to be unveiled this month, will result in the most seriously ill patients seeing consultants more quickly, although they may have to travel further.

Hospitals across Wales have said they have faced “unprecedented” levels of admissions this spring, with A&E consultants warning their departments are at “meltdown” due to overcrowding and a bed shortage…

Speaking on behalf of the health boards involved in the South Wales Programme, Dr Grant Robinson, medical director of Aneurin Bevan Health Board, said: “We cannot continue to provide all these services in every location across south Wales.

“We need to concentrate these services to ensure all patients receive safe and sustainable care.

The NHS is national health care.  Where they provide free health care to all of their people.  But to do that some people will have to travel farther than others.  Because they just don’t have the resources to have the same specialties at all hospitals.  Not when their aging population is consuming so much of the NHS budget.  Just as an aging population will consume the majority of the Obamacare budget.

National health care works better when you have a population growing younger.  When there are more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  So there are always more people to pay the high costs of retiree benefits.  But thanks to birth control and abortion populations are aging everywhere.  Making the national health care model simply unsustainable.

These nations set up their entitlement states before birth control and abortion shrank future generations.  Not really a problem in a nation with a limited government.  But a big one in a social democracy.  For that falling birthrate not only undermines the sustainability of national health care.  It also undermines state pensions.  And public sector union benefits.  Which include generous health care and pension benefits.  None of this will survive as the consumers of these benefits grow at a greater rate than those paying for these benefits.  Which will lead to higher tax rates on a shrinking workforce.  Or anarchy.  As people take to the streets as the government simply can no longer give them their benefits.

This was really not a good time to nationalize health care.  A blind person could have seen this.  But the proponents of national health care pushed for it anyway.  Even while the NHS is struggling under the weight of an aging population.  Proving that Obamacare is more about power politics than health care.  Or that those who gave it to us are just not that bright.  Whichever it is there is one thing for certain.  We would want neither to be in charge of our health care.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rationing of Health Care Resources leaves those with Rare Diseases without Treatment in NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2012

Week in Review

So you think Obamacare care will provide everyone the same level of high quality health care?  Think again.  Or take a look at the UK.  For even though the UK has national health care under the NHS everyone still does not receive equal health care treatment.  Especially those with rare diseases that will be costly to treat (see Patients with rare conditions face postcode lottery by Denis Campbell posted 10/20/2012 on the guardian).

Seriously ill patients with life-threatening rare diseases are being denied vital drugs because of a postcode lottery across the NHS that campaigners say is frustrating and unfair.

New research reveals that patients with a rare condition have much less chance of accessing “orphan” medication if they live in England rather than Scotland or Wales. “Orphan” drugs treat patients with a condition affecting fewer than five in 10,000 people.

While the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has approved 68 drugs for use with patients with rare conditions such as unusual forms of cancer and epilepsy since 2000, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has assessed only 18 of them, recommending that seven become available on the NHS in England and Wales, and another five under certain restrictions…

Nice insisted the low number of such drugs it had examined was due to a lack of referrals from the Department of Health, as it can only assess the cost effectiveness of medications which ministers there ask them to look at.

But the DoH denied patients with rare conditions were missing out and insisted that the absence of a Nice appraisal should not stop them getting what they need. “There is no evidence of a ‘postcode lottery’ in access to these drugs”, said a spokesman.

First of all why do they have a government agency (Nice) even doing this?  One reason.  Costs.  So they must ration their limited health care resources.  For if they just give anyone life-saving medications regardless of costs it will limit what other treatments the NHS can provide.  Costs are real.  Just because you have a national health care system doesn’t make them go away.  Of course, in a national health care system costs take on a whole new meaning.  For they fund health care with tax dollars.  Tax dollars controlled by bureaucrats, not health care professionals.  So instead of a doctor deciding what’s best for the patient (as it is in America until Obamacare fully kicks in) a doctor must balance doing what’s best for the patient with what’s best for the state.  For spending too much money on someone who is just going to die in a short period of time is just not an efficient use of tax dollars.

Yeah, no doubt you’re thinking about that ominous phrase some say they included in Obamacare but they did not call out by name.  Death panels.  Where some government bureaucrat (or a panel of bureaucrats) makes life or death decisions in determining a patient’s care.  Not by consulting with the patient’s doctor but by consulting a table of acceptable health care treatments for someone based on the expected return of that health care investment.  They may not call these death panels but if the expected return on the health care investment does not meet the minimum acceptable return for that investment then the patient doesn’t get that life-sustaining treatment.  And will die.

So what can we expect in the future of Obamacare?  Well, it will probably have something like Nice.  A panel that makes decisions with assumptions and math like this (see Measuring effectiveness and cost effectiveness: the QALY from the Nice website).

Having used the QALY measurement to compare how much someone’s life can be extended and improved, we then consider cost effectiveness – that is, how much the drug or treatment costs per QALY. This is the cost of using the drugs to provide a year of the best quality of life available – it could be one person receiving one QALY, but is more likely to be a number of people receiving a proportion of a QALY – for example 20 people receiving 0.05 of a QALY.

Cost effectiveness is expressed as ‘£ per QALY’.

Each drug is considered on a case-by-case basis. Generally, however, if a treatment costs more than £20,000-30,000 per QALY, then it would not be considered cost effective.

How a QALY is calculated

Patient x has a serious, life-threatening condition.

•If he continues receiving standard treatment he will live for 1 year and his quality of life will be 0.4 (0 or below = worst possible health, 1= best possible health)

•If he receives the new drug he will live for 1 year 3 months (1.25 years), with a quality of life of 0.6.

The new treatment is compared with standard care in terms of the QALYs gained:

•Standard treatment: 1 (year’s extra life) x 0.4 = 0.4 QALY

•New treatment: 1.25 (1 year, 3 months extra life) x 0.6 = 0.75 QALY

Therefore, the new treatment leads to 0.35 additional QALYs (that is: 0.75 -0.4 QALY = 0.35 QALYs).

•The cost of the new drug is assumed to be £10,000, standard treatment costs £3000.

The difference in treatment costs (£7000) is divided by the QALYs gained (0.35) to calculate the cost per QALY. So the new treatment would cost £20,000 per QALY.

During an ABC News’ June 24 special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, there was the following exchange (see Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker posted 7/28/2009 on PolitiFact):

The exchange began when Sawyer introduced Jane Sturm, who takes care of her mother, Hazel, now 105. When Hazel was 100, Sturm said, the doctor told her she needed a pacemaker. Both mother and daughter said they were game, but an arrhythmia specialist initially said no, before seeing Hazel’s “joy of life” in person.

Sturm asked the president, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

After joking that he’d like to meet Sturm’s mother and “find out what she’s eating,” the president said, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people…”

Obama continued, “And all we’re suggesting — and we’re not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that’s something we can achieve.”

This is the kind of information Nice provides.  Cool, calm, bureaucratic number crunching to determine what the proper medical treatment should be.  Balancing those two factors.  What’s best for the patient.  And what’s best for the state.  For spending too much money on someone who is just going to die in a short period of time is just not an efficient use of tax dollars.

So what can you expect from Obamacare when it’s your mother or grandmother in the hospital desperately needing treatment?  Well, the doctor may come out to the waiting room where you’re sitting scared and distraught and say, “I’m sorry.  But the National Health Efficiency Board has calculated your loved one’s quality-adjusted life years.  Or what we in the health biz call QALYs.  Sadly, her treatment would only result in a net gain of 0.18 additional QALYs.  While our guidelines clearly state that this number shall not be less than 0.22 for such an investment of health care resources.  I am truly sorry for your soon to be loss.  So here’s a prescription you can fill on your way out for a pill to manage her pain until she dies.  Thank you and good day.  Next!”

This is the problem when someone else pays your bills.  That someone else has a say in your treatment.  Whether they are called death panels or not.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Abandoned Surgery in Wales Indicate a Doctor Shortage in the NHS?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2012

Week in Review

The NHS made a catalogue of serious errors on a surgery patient.  They apologized.  And paid the patient about $5,000.  All in a day’s work at the NHS (see Hywel Dda Health board pay-out over ‘catalogue of errors’ posted 10/4/2012 on BBC News Wales).

A health board has apologised and is paying £3,250 after a “catalogue of serious errors” involving a woman with a gynaecological condition.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales found Emma Turner’s care while being treated for endometriosis at Glangwili hospital, Carmarthen was mismanaged.

It found she suffered physical trauma, risk and worry when surgery was abandoned after it had started.

Accidents happen.  No one is perfect.  Which is why there is malpractice insurance for doctors.  And liability insurance for hospitals.  Well, in the U.S., at least.  So what exactly led to this catalogue of serious errors?  As it turns out, something that probably wouldn’t have happened in the U.S.  Well, before Obamacare, that is.

Miss Turner, 26, had surgery to remove a cyst from her left ovary in June last year but a severe form of endometriosis – a condition that can lead to infertility – was found.

Further surgery was scheduled for September which would be a joint procedure by a consultant gynaecologist and a bowel surgeon.

But after it had begun it had to be stopped because the surgeon was not available and an on-call replacement felt the procedure was so complicated it should be carried out in a specialist department.

They started the surgery even though one of the two surgeons was a no-show.  Trusting that the on-call replacement could perform any surgery he or she was called on to do.  The on-call surgeon then said the complexity of the surgery was beyond his or her skill level.  Despite being on-call for just such an emergency.  Which is why they had to abandon the surgery after they had already started.  Because the hospital wasn’t staffed appropriately.  And why was that?  The aging population in the UK has forced the NHS to ration health care.  In part because they can’t find enough doctors to staff their hospitals.  Something to look forward to as Obamacare mutates into a full-blown national health care system.



Tags: , , , , , , ,

The High Cost of National Health Care is causing the NHS to Close Hospitals in Wales

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Proponents of Obamacare want a full-blown national health care system like the British NHS.  Because that’s the only way to guarantee quality health care for all Americans.  And not just those who can afford it.  The problem with the American system, they say, is the pursuit of profits.  Making money on people’s ill health.  Which is just wrong.  And immoral.  Only when they remove the profit incentive can the American health care system approach the British model.  And become a health care utopia.  Where they provide everything for everyone.  And no one ever has to worry about their health care needs (see South Wales hospital shake-up plans defended posted 9/27/2012 on BBC News Wales).

Health bosses have defended proposals to concentrate some specialist hospital services in south Wales in four or five locations.

The Conservatives and Plaid Cymru have expressed concerns that the plans could see key local health services downgraded or closed…

The current shape of NHS in south Wales is based on a model of district general hospitals developed in the 1960s.

But the health boards say that is unsuited to deal with modern pressures on the health service.

Centralising some services, such as high-level care for children and newborn babies, in fewer large hospitals would allow patients to get access to the best care around the clock, they said.

Unless, apparently, you live in south Wales.  Where that ‘everything for everyone’ turns out to be really, really expensive.  And the only way they can afford to pay for that is by making people travel further for their health care needs.  As they ration services to fewer larger hospitals.  That turns health care into an economies of scale, assembly line-like production model.  To maximize the health care services a shrinking number of doctors can provide.

Health Minister Lesley Griffiths said it was essential patients had safe, sustainable services as close to home as possible – and the status quo was not an option.

But the Conservatives said the plans would lead to the downgrading of hospitals, and blamed the Welsh government for failing to recruit enough doctors.

Andrew RT Davies, Tory leader in the assembly, told BBC Wales: “[The current system] is unsustainable because they are unable to find the clinicians to fill the rotas.

“It is my contention this is happening because the health service in Wales has been starved of cash, and the Welsh government, and Carwyn Jones as particular as first minister, has failed to fill the medical rosters by supporting the health boards in recruiting doctors into Wales.”

Starved for cash?  Has failed to fill the medical rosters?  Failed to recruit doctors to Wales?  Doesn’t sound much like a health care utopia to me.   Apparently that national health care system simply can’t afford to provide everything for everyone.  At least without making them travel awhile for their health care needs.

This is the future of Obamacare.  When you start providing everything for everyone costs rise.  And when costs rise you don’t have many options.  You can cut pay and benefits of your health care providers.  A major cost of any health care system.  But if you don’t pay doctors well it won’t encourage people to become doctors.  And let’s face it, it isn’t easy to be a doctor.  That’s why we pay doctors a lot.  To encourage them to do these hard jobs that so few of us are willing to do.

So you can only cut pay and benefits so far.  In fact the best you’ll probably be able to do is to decrease further pay increases.  So that leaves the only other alternative.  Rationing.  Closing hospitals and making people travel further for their health care needs.  Which the NHS is doing in Wales.  And Obamacare will be doing everywhere in the U.S.  Because costs are costs. Whatever the NHS goes through any other national health care system will go through.  So if they ration services Obamacare will ration services.

And, of course, Obamacare will raise taxes.  For awhile.  Until they can raise taxes no more.  Like the British can no longer do.  So the NHS is closing hospitals.  Like Obamacare will eventually do in the United States.  As Obamacare turns to the last cost saving measure.  Rationing.  Which will include those death panels.

Some health care utopia, huh?



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

National Health Care Budget Deficits force Hospital Closures in Wales

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 21st, 2012

Week in Review

People have the misperception that a national health care system provides quality health care to everyone for free.  But health care is not free.  Someone has to pay for it.  In the United Kingdom that’s the taxpayer.  And when they can’t raise enough in taxes to close budget deficits they have to cut costs.  Close hospitals.  And make people travel farther for their health care needs (see Betsi Cadwaladr proposals: Flint and Blaenau Ffestiniog hospitals may shut posted 7/19/2012 on BBC News Wales).

Two community hospitals could close and minor injury accident departments may shut at others under a major health service shake-up in north Wales…

Among the areas under scrutiny are older people’s mental health services, neonatal intensive care and vascular and major arterial surgery.

The board is the first in Wales to outline plans for balancing the books.

It predicts a gap of £64.6m, the second highest in Wales…

Speaking before the meeting at St Asaph, Christine Evans, chair of patient watchdog Betsi Cadwaladr Community Health Council, said: “The local communities will be very upset.”

The UK, like the US, has an aging population.  And that’s a fact.  There are fewer people entering the workforce than are leaving it.  And those who are leaving the workforce tend to consume most of the health care services.  So you have a huge transfer of wealth from the working young to the retired seniors.  But because there are so many more of those retired seniors it is difficult to tax the working young enough to pay for them.  And if they can’t generate the tax revenue they have little choice but to cut costs.  Such as closing hospitals and minor injury departments.  And there’s probably more to come.

In the U.S. the private health insurers were vigilant in controlling health care costs.  For they were the only ones who were.  Doctors are reluctant to order tests that aren’t absolutely necessary because health insurers may not reimburse them.  And if they have a relationship with their patient, which most of them have, they don’t want their patient to get stuck with the bill.  So they won’t order a test if it’s not absolutely necessary.  Unless the patient insists.  People hate the insurance companies for this.  But one thing the private health insurance companies never did was close hospitals.

This is the future of Obamacare.  Health care will still cost.  Someone will still have to pay for it.  So they will do like they do in the UK.  Raise taxes.  Transfer wealth.  And then close hospitals when all of that fails to close budget deficits.  It’s just the nature of a national health care system treating an aging population.  With about 5 times the population of the UK those budget deficits will probably be about 5 times worse under Obamacare.  With 5 times the hospital closures.  Making the local communities about 5 times as upset.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in the UK are using Abortion as Birth Control costing the Government Billions in lost Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2012

Week in Review

There are two costs with an abortion.  A social cost.  And a financial one.  The social cost is what these abortions say about how we value human life.  And the financial cost is lost tax revenue.  For every abortion is a lost taxpayer.  Which is pretty serious considering the budget deficits countries are running to pay for the benefits we provide for those babies we didn’t abort (see NHS spends £1m a week on repeat abortions: Single women using terminations ‘as another form of contraceptive’ by Daniel Martin posted 5/13/2012 on the Daily Mail).

The Health Service is spending around £1million a week providing repeat abortions.

Critics said figures revealed yesterday show thousands of women are using the procedure as a form of contraception.

It is not unknown for some women to have seven, eight or even nine terminations in their lifetime.

According to the statistics, single or unmarried women account for five out of every six repeat terminations. Around a third of all abortions carried out in England and Wales are repeats…

In 2010, the latest year for which figures are available, some 189,000 abortions took place. Of these, more than 64,000 terminations were on women who had already aborted a foetus in the past.

In an expanding welfare state having babies is very important.  For to shower everyone with generous benefits, including pensions and health care that last long into a person’s eighties and nineties, you need a whole lot more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  And you do that with an expanding birthrate.  By having more live births than deaths.  The more the better.  For the more live births the more generous the benefits can be further down the road.  Having abortions, though, reduces how generous the government can be in the future.

In 2010 there were approximately 723,165 live births in England and Wales and approximately 493,242 deaths. And, of course, approximately 189,000 abortions.  For every person that died in 2010 there were 1.466 people born to replace them.  If those abortions did not happen and their pregnancies were carried to term that number would have been 1.849.  Which would have been more than the 1.748 during the first decade of the 20th century.  So what does this mean?  Had these numbers held steady or increased from 1901 until today the UK would probably not be having budget deficits.  Because the number of people entering the workforce would have stayed larger than the number leaving the workforce.  Meaning more revenue from income taxes and less from borrowing.  So why is the UK running a high deficit?  And carrying a large debt?

Because of abortion and birth control.  When sex turned into consequence-free fun people had more of it and fewer babies.  The ratio of live births to deaths was 1.748 in the first decade of the 20th century.  It was 1.415 during the second decade.  It was 1.485 during the Twenties.  It was 1.315 during the Thirties and Forties.  It was 1.415 during the Fifties (the post-war baby boom).  It was 1.508 during the Sixties.  And then came birth control and abortion.  And the baby bust generations.  It fell to 1.105 during the Seventies.  It was 1.156 during the Eighties.  It was 1.158 during the Nineties.  And it climbed back up to 1.228 in the first 8 years of the 21st century.

So following the baby boom the population growth rate screeched to a halt.  Just barely replacing each death with a live birth.  Which is why pension and health care costs are busting the treasury in the UK.  The baby boomers are retiring.  And the baby busters are stuck with the bill for their retirement.  If the UK wants a quick path to financial stability they would do well to make abortions illegal.  Because a live birth to death ratio of 1.849 would fix all of their fiscal woes in about 20 years.  They could even borrow money to maintain benefits now with some special 30-year debt.  Which should be easy to refinance in 20 years with all that new tax revenue coming on line.  And old debt would be easier to retire with an expanding population growth rate.  Which a high live birth to death ration will give you.

Let’s just look at those 189,000 abortions.  If they each grew up to earn $40,000 (£23,952) twenty years from now they would earn a total of $7.134 billion (£4.527 billion) in annual income.  If taxed at a tax rate of 20% that would bring $1.512 billion (£905 million) into the treasury.  If 1% of these went on to be millionaires double this number.  Bringing the cost of those abortions to approximately £2 billion ($3.34 billion) in lost tax revenue a year.  Not to mention the lost tax revenue at all the other levels of taxation.  Making abortions costly in more ways than one.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,