Danish activists for the disabled are staunchly defending a government campaign that pays sex workers to provide sex once a month for disabled people.So, really, what was the first question that came into your mind? Wasn't it: How disabled do you have to be? (At the Roberts hearings Teddy Kennedy made a reference to 50 million as the number of Americans With Disabilities.)
Opposition parties call the program, officially known as ''Sex, irrespective of disability,'' immoral.
''We spend a large proportion of our taxes rescuing women from prostitution. But at the same time we officially encourage carers to help contact with prostitutes,'' said Social-Democrat spokesperson Kristen Brosboel.
Responded Stig Langvad of the country's Disabled Association: ''The disabled must have the same possibilities as other people. Politicians can debate whether prostitution should be allowed in general, instead of preventing only the disabled from having access to it.''
I think it's creepy for the government to be deciding how often people ought to have sex and to be keeping official records about the persons participating in this program.
Opinions?
IN THE COMMENTS: A coinage. You've heard of the Nanny State. This is the Poonanny State.
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
A government program for getting laid? What the hell? People actually think that they have a right to provided sex partners?
And I agree--the whole government involvement thing is very creepy.
My mind is an utter blank.
The only thing that I can think of in response to this latest Big Brotherism is imagining the Muppet Show's Swedish Chef, and what he'd say about this Sex-for-the-Disabled programme:
BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK!
...thank God I emigrated from that continent before it was too late. Seriously.
Cheers,
Victoria
I can't believe that anyone aware of the drift of European nanny-state liberalism is surprised by this.
Next up: soma for everyone!
I'm getting a diagnosis of neuropathy from the local quack and moving to Denmark, stat.
Olivia1:
"What about the abled married guy who only gets it every other month. "
- perhaps some enterprising attorney could make the case that this class of individual actually IS disabled?
I can only imagine the bedtime conversations taking place around the world with men armed with this new ammunition: "But honey, the Danish government says we have to!"
My first thought was this: If this is extreme, it is worth noting that the Danish, with their 'nanny state' system, live longer, are healthier and have a higher standard of living than we do. So they must be doing something right.
My second thought was this: The article says, ''We spend a large proportion of our taxes rescuing women from prostitution. Emphasis on the word, 'women.' Not male prostitutes.
Now, aren't about half of the disabled in the country probably women in the first place, and if so do they make sure that there is an adequate supply of gigolos? And does the program extend to gay disabled people?
Instead of creating more paperwork for record keeping; I think participants should blog about it instead.
:)
it is worth noting that the Danish, with their 'nanny state' system, live longer, are healthier and have a higher standard of living than we do. So they must be doing something right.
Yes, because living a long time as coddled physcial specimens is the highest ideal we can strive for as a society. Freedom, self-determination, and all that carp is for cowboys and brutes.
Eli,
I'm not sure what stats you're looking at, or how you measure "standard of living." According to the CIA World Fact Book, though, the life expectancies in the two countries are equal.
Even if Danish standard of living is higher, it comes at the cost of higher taxes (meaning less freedom of individual choice, which is something the US has historically valued).
Let's be realistic: the real problem with this proposal will be getting EU agreement on a whole host of sex-benefit-related standards (with the French staunchly protecting their own sex workers against free markets and cheap foreign competition).
"So, really, what was the first question that came into your mind? Wasn't it: How disabled do you have to be?"
That's classic! lol!
Yes, that was the first question that occured to me. But the second was "Is it possible that the Danes will succeed in making sex undesirable?" The only thing I can imagine that would be less pleasant than having to pay for sex is having the government pay for my having sex.
Perhaps this will finally give truth to the old line:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Following up on a comment above, one interesting thing is that even in a purportedly progressive country, we still see, as a feminist would say, that "Male is the norm." Evidently, the government is paying for disabled males to receive sexual services, yet the Danes describe this as meeting the needs of disabled "people."
Ahhhhh . . . socialism.
They have the nanny state, we're getting the nunny state (it'll smack your hand with a ruler if you touch yourself.) Pace Scalia, government doesn't belong in their bedrooms OR ours.
OK. here is the link.
And you guys are right in the specific case of Denmark (life expectancy in US is 77.7 years and in Denmark 77.6 years), but in fact Denmark is at the low end of Europe. The following industrialized "first world" countries with socialized medicine all have longer lifespans (mostly by at least a full year) than the United States:
Austrailia 80.4 years
Austria 78.9 years
Canada 80.1 years
Finland 78.3 years
France 79.6 years
Germany 78.7 years
Greece 79.1 years
Israel 79.3 years
Italy 79.7 years
Japan 81.2 years
New Zealand 78.7 years
Norway 79.4 years
Spain 79.5 years
Sweden 80.4 years
Switzerland 80.4 years
United Kingdom 78.4
For some reason, this table did not include Belgium or the Netherlands.
So, you were only correct insofar as Denmark was on the bottom end of western Europe (actually shared with Ireland,) so they are 1/10 of a year behind us (and among western countries, Portugal is 2/10 behind us). But the overall average of the westernized countries is still much better than we are.
And as far as taxes are concerned, in 2003, the United States spent 15.3% of our GDP on healthcare while it accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The problem with those who are opposed to socialized medicine is this:
I would agree that right now we probably have a better healthcare system than most of these countries for those who can afford it. But for the rest of the people, they get the shaft. They have no other option THAN our 'Cadillac healthcare system,' which is great if you are wealthy, but not much of a choice if you have a 'Chevrolet budget.'
And in Denmark, government spending is 75% of GDP, as opposed to 20% in the US. So what? The thread was about socialized sex, not socialized health care. Can we get back to nationalized sex service jokes now?
Sean E and Lee -- too funny! That gives new meaning to Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me With Science"
For some reason, this table did not include Belgium or the Netherlands.
That's because there is no census-taking in The Netherlands and Belgium, anymore.
The Dutch eradicated census-taking as being too intrusive, some years ago.
As for the Belgians, don't worry about them.
It's illegal not to vote in Belgium (as it is in a slew of other countries, such as Brazil), and government punishment can include not renewing your passport if you don't vote.
It's not the Nanny State. It's the Numpty State.
P.S.: Where is Finn Christiansen?? One of Ann's most loyal readers, and a Dane by birth. I'd looooove to hear what he has to say about this.
Cheers,
Victoria
I wonder what the "quality of sex" is with this program. Is there a menu? Or, more likely, do you take what is delivered.
I wonder who might be bidding for the government contract to supply the services? Does the low bidder get the job?
The details of the program would be interesting to review.
Hey Eddie, do you work in health care? Because I certainly do. Medicare hardly covers a thing, Medicaid only kicks in when someone's poorer than poor, and the costs of health care so huge that you can have health insurance through your employer and still not be able to afford the associated costs. The United States health care system is a mess, and if you can't see that, then well.. you don't work in health care.
Medicaid only kicks in when someone's poorer than poor, and the costs of health care so huge that you can have health insurance through your employer and still not be able to afford the associated costs.
Sorry but I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. I work with
a guy who lives with his girlfriend and their three children. Our company offers health insurance benefits to all employees. He will not put his girlfriend and children on his policy. Why? Because right now they're on Medicaid which is totally free. If they were on regular health insurance, they'd have to fork out $20 co-payments, and they'd rather spend the money
on electronics and casino visits. And of course since Medicaid is free, the girlfriend and kids just head over to the emergency room when they get sick instead of making regular doctor's appointments. He says that it doesn't matter that it costs 10 times as much because he isn't paying for it. (The taxpayers also provided him with a brand new car. Your government dollars at work.)
Oh, and that's ky00t diane. I'm so sure your disability is so comparable to everyone elses. I'm sure the 45 year old man with down syndrome could get a good-paying job and support himself completely if he really wanted to. We should get rid of Medicare completely! Because really, what are they doing living so long if they can't even support themselves at an advanced age?? I hope all of you asshole conservatives end up in nursing homes having spent all of your life savings, lonely and sick one day. And I hope no one gives a shit because that's the way you talk about everyone and everything else in this world. Sickening.
Well obviously there are exceptions, Freeman. The woman obviously knows how to work the system. If she's not married to him, they don't have to list each other as providing income to each other. So she's technically dirt poor, but she lives off of him.
I'm not talking about that though. I'm talking about the family with children with chronic asthma that have to pay $2000 a month in inhalers and nebulizers, doctors visits, etc. Both parents work and make a decent income but see absolutely none of it because they spend it all on health care to doctors that care more about their bonuses than helping their patients get better. The system in place in the United States actually rewards doctors for providing less care in some situations. Yes the US health care system is a mess.
I've had great fun all day mentioning this blogpost to my friends.
Finally a Canadian friend (no stranger to wacky gomint programmes) came up with the best comment so far:
Me: "How are they going to pay for it?"
Him: "By instituting a 7% sex tax...or even better, the 1% /inch tax."
...can I get a what-what from the congregation?
Cheers,
Victoria
One more --
An email comment from my cousin Alistair, a medical doctor in the UK:
"Capital idea! you're wrong about Nanny State, tho.
It's the Poonanny State."
All together now...an Instapundit "Indeed".
Cheers,
Victoria
Ziemer: You're aware that Britain is a democratic state, are you not? Are you also aware that they have a standardized health care system? And a better health care system than the United States? I haven't said a damn thing about socialism. Take a goddamn Public Health class and see the abomination that is the US Health Care system for yourself. I'm all for freedom and democracy, but health is health. If it doesn't work.. it should be standardized. You all take your defense of any and all things American way too far. It's part of our RIGHTS to criticize things inherently wrong in this country and to fix them..
You're aware that Britain is a democratic state, are you not? Are you also aware that they have a standardized health care system? And a better health care system than the United States?
I have three things to tell you, Ploopusgirl:
1- I'm British.
2- I come from 4 generations of medical doctors. I'm the fifth -- in 2 years.
3- Comparing the quality of medical coverage received in the UK to what I now receive in the US is ludicrous.
To get a simple antibiotic from your GP in the UK is often a struggle of pathetic proportions.
I'd like to see you wait in the queue for years to try to get even simple operations.
The A&Es, hospitals, and outpatient care are amazingly backwards comparatively -- and let's not even mention the equipment I have access to here in the US.
The red-tape encountered these days, now that we are supposed to present IDs is overwhelming.
Oh, of course in Scotland, they still have "walk-in" service without proof -- so you have people from all over the world landing at Prestwick, and checking themselves in to hospitals in Glasgow.
You want to spout about topics you have no first-hand knowledge of, go to Daily Kos.
Here, you deal with facts, and with me.
Cheers,
Victoria
I realize this thread has evolved into yet another shouting match about the relative merits of various national health scare schemes (no that's not a typo), but I'd like to try and bring this back to a snarky thread full of sexual innuendo
Shouldn't some enterprising disabled Dane, if they choose to forgo the help of professionals, demand government credits for taking matters into their own hands?
(I'm just saying...)
ploopusgirl pretty much said what I would say about medicare and medicaid, but I would refer you to the line in my post where I said that people have no alternative to a 'Cadillac health care system' if they are on a Chevrolet budget. Mediaid is more for people on a 'shoe leather' budget. And yes, it pays for those really destitute people (although not usually enough to cover the cost to the hospital for the treatment they provide, but that is another issue).
But when I say 'Chevolet' budget, I am talking about the great majority of Americans who are not wealthy, and may or may not have some level of insurance, but frankly won't be able to afford it if something awful happens. To wit, I know of two people who this has happened to: 1) An older gentleman here who got terminal cancer and his entire estate went to pay medical bills, and his family was left with nothing (ironically that conservatives are so much more concerned with rolling back a tax on inheritance that mainly applies to millionaires, when people with less who die from cancer or other expensive diseases are left with nothing; yet the same conservatives claim to be 'horrified' at the idea of voluntary euthanasia, when with the current system financial reasons would probably be a chief motivator for it); and
2) A man here whose son was killed in an accident and his niece lost an arm in the same accident. He is self-employed and suddenly has an $80,000 hospital bill with no way to pay it.
These kinds of things don't happen in civilized countries.
As to the poster who claimed my list was skewed, I said 'westernized, industrial countries (the traditional 'first world') That is what the U.S. is considered, and should be considered. So you can say we live longer than people in 'third world countries' like Kenya, or former 'second world' countries like Poland, but those comparisons don't apply as much as comparisons to other 'free' countries. As to infant mortality, I would only answer that our higher rate of infant mortality is itself a symptom of the defectiveness of our system, since we price many people out of the market for prenatal care (which is universal in other countries). And I bet some of the same people who don't want to provide free prenatal care, claim to be 'pro-life' on the abortion issue. Oh, yeah and the 'north-south' thing is baloney. What, the balmy northern climate makes people live longer? Balderdash. And Spain, Italy, Israel and Greece are industrialized westernized countries which are not far north at all (to say nothing of Austrailia and New Zealand).
As to the post who suggested moving to Cuba or North Korea, I will ignore that as a nutty idea. Just because I support a European style healthcare system doesn't mean I want to live in a country where the government dispenses 'care' from the muzzle of a gun.
As to the poster who opined that the U.S. is the only country left without some kind of socialized medicine, well I would suggest that you think about that one yourself. If something doesn't work, others wouldn't be so eager to copy it.
I think that this discussion is a very good illustration of the difference between liberal and conservative thought.
PoopusGirl blames conservatives for being heartless. And the conservatives respond that liberals (such as she) are not pragmatic. (obligatory W. Churchill quote here).
The problem from a conservative point of view is not compassion, but that compassion without pragmatism almost invariably leads to many more problems than it solves. Throwing money at a problem, like health care here, is most often counter productive. As noted above, in the health care arena, socialized health care, no matter how desirable, ends up with all sorts of undesirable externalities, ranging from long lines (or queues in GB) to shoddy care, for whatever care you end up getting.
Andy decent economist would predict this. Whenever you eliminate price signals and allocation, you end up with misallocation, and if you don't charge for a good (or charge enough), then invariably, it will be overused.
I should add that a lot of our own problems with health care are (IMHO) a result of our quasi-socialist segments, notably Medicare and Medicaid. Not only are they being massively overused, because of a lack of valid price signals, but they are being partially funded by massive cross-subsidation from the less socialistic segments.
The problem is that we really don't know yet what works - we just know what doesn't.
Whatever, I mustn't be pragmatic enough, Bruce. I guess the professor of my goddamn United States Health Care class must be lying, along with the text. Along with the experience I have working directly inside of the healthcare system. I must know nothing, as a student in a doctorate program of United States Health Care. Medicare is wonderful and works forever, and covers everything; it's true. Medicaid is way over abused by everyone and also covers everything! All physicians must accept Medicaid, contrary to what I've been taught. You're all so genius! And those not on Medicare or Medicaid are obviously insured by private insurance, which clearly guarantees that everything will be covered and you'll maintain your life savings! People without insurance don't try hard enough! And I would so much rather be bankrupt than alive. So what if I can't move anymore, or if I'm stricken to a bed hooked up to IVs and building more and more debt for my children! I've spent all my own inheritance, so they won't have that to help them out! Hey who cares, we've got the best health care system in the world! For the 2,000 or so who can afford it...
And downtownlad was right, Victoria. You are the most amazing person on this board. You know absofuckinglutely everything! You know that I have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever. I must have much less knowledge regarding healthcare than all the lawyers (www.softpats.com!!! LOLOL) and professors and worthless unemployed morons who sit around reading this blog whining about politics. I aspire to have you as my physician; "Dr Victoria, I need an appointment with you" "Sorry, not today, I have to make fun of Ann Althouse from the internet about her TV watching habits! LOLOL!"
I also love the way you agreed with me yesterday, Miklos, but suddenly you contradict everything I've said, including what you've once agred with. Makes sense. Everyone else hates me, you might as well too, huh?
I give up.
I also love the way you agreed with me yesterday, Miklos, but suddenly you contradict everything I've said, including what you've once agred with. Makes sense. Everyone else hates me, you might as well too, huh?
I give up.
I'm not sure what your purpose is to be here, then, Ploopusgirl.
In almost every post, you attack, villify, and degrade people for their viewpoints.
You are an one-woman protest blogger.
But since you come to a board whose members are likely to have certain opinions, specifically, viewpoints who tilt right-wards, the only conclusion seems to be you want to be here -- to make sure they don't unchallenged.
But when challenged, you put up a very desultory fight.
In 3 months on Althouse, I've seen you hurl personal insults, have whiney-why-are-you-attacking-mes, and a show complete lack of debating skills in ALMOST EVERY POST.
God only knows what your motivation is to be here, but the least you could do, is hold up your end of the debate bargain.
DEFEND YOUR POSITIONS.
If you're a good-faith poster, that's what you should do.
If, however, your intent is merely to troll, don't go crying back to mummy if people call you out on it.
I know I will.
Cheers,
Victoria
I'm pretty sure I offered up and defended my point in my first four goddamn posts, Victoria. They were shot down because conservatives find that anything that is structured and standardized must be socialist and evil. Why don't you whine at them for not offering a better fight than "you're a delusional socialist"?
Don't tell me I have no knowledge of the subject matter, though. I have plenty of goddamn knowledge and plenty of goddamn experience. So, bugger off, would you?
Cheers..
Ploop,
Actually, all you've offered are assertions unfounded by facts, mixed with a healthy dose of angry cursing.
You claim that health care in the UK is somehow "better" than in the US but have yet to address the actual experiences of people who've lived under that system or the problems of inadequate resources, intolerably long waits to see a doctor and higher mortality rates from surgery.
No doubt the US healthcare system could be improved, but you've yet to offer any real evidence to demonstrate that things will be better by going to a UK-style government-controlled system which necessarily produces scarcity and inefficiencies of its own. Instead, as Victoria pointed out, you've simply made ridiculous ad hominem attacks and retreated into self-pity.
I've reread the posts and I don't see how anyone has attacked you personally in spite of your incredible rudeness. I think people here would be willing to listen to factual arguments and logical respones, if you have any.
Ploopy, Ploopy, Ploopy, do you remember David Lynch's (yes THAT David Lynch) comic strip from 1983-1992?
http://www.davidlynch.de/angry.html
Well every strip had the same visuals and started with the same boxed text,
"The dog who is so angry he cannot move. He cannot eat. he cannot sleep. He can just barely growl. ....Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he approaches the state of rigor mortis."
Does this remind you of anyone ploopusgirl?
Don't tell me I have no knowledge of the subject matter, though. I have plenty of goddamn knowledge and plenty of goddamn experience. So, bugger off, would you?
Frustrated. Coarse. Ineffectual.
Pff.
You offer nothing, and take away our time.
Cheers,
Victoria
Luckily, I will not stand for this on the holy blog of Althouse! If she wants to spew such obscene vituperation, she will have to deal with me first! With my new katana in hand (which I saved up for all by myself *smiles*), thricely blessed with the powers of Logic by a Canadian Friend, a UK Medical Doctor, and a Swedish Chef I shall smite her with at the first sign of bile and trollishness! This is my promise to you all, God help me!
Hey -- does anyone remember the Ingmar Bergman film, Persona?
I suddenly got a flashback to that scene where Bibi Andersson's face melds with Liv Ullman's, resulting in a merging of both personalities into one.
I love it!
Cheers,
Victoria
Okay, guys. We're all waiting here.
Can get we back to the sex, please?
Cheers,
Victoria
"To wit, I know of two people who this has happened to: 1) An older gentleman here who got terminal cancer and his entire estate went to pay medical bills,"
Depending on how old this "older gentleman" is, shouldn't Medicare cover health care once you get to a certain age? Isn't that the point of Medicare?
Lindsey, darling, you offered up any of credibility with this beautiful line right here. Do you know anything about Medicare? Have you ever done any research on it? Medicare covers nothing. Medicare covers skilled care in a hospital, and the elderly still have to pay a large chunk of their costs out of pocket with the Medicare coverage. Long term nursing home care? Medicare doesn't touch it unless it's hospice care or there are nurses involved. In your ordinary nursing home, where they just shove the elderly to rot away, most of the residents waste away their life savings paying for it themselves, and then once their poor enough, Medicaid will kick in for them and pay for their wonderful lives in the home the rest of the way. Yeah, Eddie, much rather be bankrupt lying in a nursing home where no one gives a shit about me than be dead. Prescription drugs? Ha! Medicare is implementing a new prescription drug plan (well, it's already been implemented partly, but it's kicking in for real in January). Want to know how great the plan is? They start with a $250 deductible that they pay out of pocket. Then they get 25% of their drugs covered until theyve spent $2250. So if they have a $2000 drug on a monthly basis, they still pay $1500 a month on their own (Great plan!). After theyve reached $2250, they have to pay everything in full out of pocket until theyve spent $5500. After this point they finally have good coverage (95% of drug costs) kick in, but before they get there they have to spend at least $4000 out of pocket. On drugs alone. And they will.
Yeah, this health care system's wonderful. As long as you're not 80 years old.
Ohhhh. I see, Eddie. Those elderly, dying, miserable people in nursing homes are robbing us blind. I'm so infuriated, like I've never been before. How do you work in a nursing home, see how these people "live" and maintain that arrogant fucking attitude and question them? Who in their right goddamn mind would throw their shit away to live in a nursing home? If anyone is taking advantage of the system, it's the spoiled brat children, not the dying elderly. And I love the way you speak of spoiled brat children as if you're not the epitome of that. I'm sure your parents aren't rotting away in a nursing home right now at all! Your beautiful picture would convince me that you're nothing but honest, caring and personable!
.. or an arrogant right wing prick..
.. or an arrogant right wing prick..
I have yet to see one comment about the topic at hand from our scatalogical, aggressive resident troll.
Trolls like to debase the conversation, thus ruining all threads by levelling vitriol at people, which it's difficult to control oneself from responding to.
Don't let trolls ruin this blog.
Stand up, and say, not me. I won't feed them with anything but nonsense replies.
Cheers,
Victoria
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा