Victor Billot

Broke, Anxious or Seriously flush

admin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:56:27 +0000

The following article appeared in the Otago Daily Times, on Wednesday 3 February 2010, in response to an article by Dr Mathew Zacharias entitled Patients’ rights trampled in drive for equality and ongoing talk about user pays models at the Dunedin Public Hospital.

I was interested to read the hard-headed realism of Dr Mathew Zacharias in his opinion piece on how equality is getting in the way of patient rights (ODT, 1.2.10).

But I believe he is going the wrong way to achieve his goals by talking about “rights” and “equality” when it comes to his support for the right to buy preferential treatment in a public hospital.

It just confuses matters for the average punter.

I have prepared a modest proposal for the Otago District Health Board.

They could sell the concept (it’s a commercial proposition, of course) to a population who have shown themselves somewhat resistant to the “user pays” virus, if you’ll excuse the analogy.

The basic mission statement is to “put customers with cash at the top of the queue”.

First, we need a snappy slogan: “We can see you right away, if you’ve got the bucks to pay.”

The advantage here is this cuts to the chase and avoids any potential misunderstandings about the nature of the contract on offer.

On first admission to hospital, the customer who arrives for treatment is directed to triage.

A high-tech body scanner identifies symptoms and allocates customers into three new categories: (A) Broke, (B) Anxious and barely solvent, and (C) Seriously flush.

These are technically economic terms, not medical ones.

Customers suffering from “Broke” are immediately directed to the “recovery area” which is to be found in the underground car park.

Facilities include a drinks machine and the ex-customers are left to recover for at least an hour before being moved along by security guards.

Waiting lists are eliminated, as there is nothing to wait for.

Next in line, category two.

Customers suffering from being barely solvent are encouraged to take a deep breath and stand on their own two feet.

An analysis is made of the customer’s condition by highly trained specialists, many of whom study for years in accountancy.

Mortgage, super funds, bank accounts, all would be carefully examined.

Family are involved in the process as they might be able to serve as “donors”.

Eventually, a decision is made on whether the barely solvent customer is worth operating on (literally).

The customer is then re-allocated to “Broke” category (see above) or offered a “Premium Economy Class” upgrade package with a standby option.

Finance is available to these borderline cases through Australian-owned Health Insurance Providers (HIPs) who will provide bedside auctions for the most competitive time payment options.

This transaction is known as a HIP Operation (or Hippo).

Under the plan, you can even get HIP Operations for hip operations.

Actually, you won’t get a hip operation unless you have a HIP Operation.

Just sign on the dotted line, please.

This is an example of the potential for private partnerships in the public health system, or public partnerships in the private health system; we don’t care what you call it as long as you can front up with the readies.

Which brings us, finally, to category three.

Customers who are “Seriously flush” are wheeled immediately into fur-lined elevator to pre-op on the 10th floor upon presentation of a valid credit card.

Mood lighting, relaxing music and the best in 21st-century care await.

This system is clear, straightforward and avoids any unfortunate and embarrassing scenes with the families of customers who are unable to finance their treatment in a public hospital.

Obviously, this is an ambitious and bold vision to develop free choice and individual rights.

It may take some time to work towards, but the possibilities are endless.

Finally, I am hoping that I can sell this proposal for a reasonable sum.

Otherwise there’s no way I’m ever going to be able to afford to pay for my right to medical treatment in a public hospital.

Man makes religion; it does not make man

admin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:21:24 +0000

Published Otago Daily Times, 30 October 2009

In a Faith and Reason column, published in the past few months in the Otago Daily Times, the writer – a pastor – started his discourse on religion by quoting Karl Marx as saying “Religion is the opiate of the people”.

The problem is this quote is, strictly speaking, not factual.

Let’s look at what Karl Marx actually wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844) in full, which reveals a very different and much more subtle meaning:

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

“It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

“To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Marx describes religion here as the very real projection of human hopes and desires, an impulse for a better world.

But to him, religion is nonetheless a human creation that is holding back people from improving their real lives in the here and now, as they wait for “pie in the sky when you die” (that quote is from Joe Hill).

As Marx said: “Man makes religion, religion does not make man”.

I think the pastor was trying to make a point that atheism equals Karl Marx equals Stalin equals dictatorship.

Which, of course, is nonsense, as atheists have diverse social, political and economic views.

What we have in common is not believing in God.

The problem for the pastor’s argument is that if we apply the same standards to religion, we could say that it shares the “legacy of violence and repression” that he attributes to others.

Should we hold Jesus Christ responsible for the Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, or the numerous other squalid and brutal atrocities carried out in the name of faith or under its cloak of justification?

What about Christian civilisation as encountered by the indigenous Americans or Tasmanians, or the victims of the slave trade?

I’m not seeking to rank historical horrors here.

But I suggest a good place to start is “first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”(Matthew 7:5).

There is an arrogance behind the attitude that if you do not agree with religion, then you are doomed to misery and hopelessness, to being a lesser person.

That’s the crude carrot and the stick method of religious indoctrination – “believe” and good things happen, don’t “believe” and bad things happen.

What we need to give our lives “meaning”, according to some recent religious correspondents to Faith and Reason, is a hotch-potch of ancient fables mangled through countless translations, featuring contradictory advice, incidents of appalling cruelty carried out by a loving God, spiced up with magic tricks and concluding with the impressive but frankly barking Book of Revelations.

Then comes the emotional manipulation.

One recent story trotted out is that of the bereft parent suffering unimaginable loss who is advised simply “to believe”.

We could perhaps ask why a benevolent creator of the universe, who pays special and particular attention to all of us, would visit such suffering on his children in the first place.

Perhaps to teach us some kind of obscure lesson, or to make us better people?Great. Good one, God.

I have no issue with the healing power of love or compassion.

But these are truly human things, a complex result of our evolution, our emotional, intellectual and cultural make-up.

Another concern is the claimed scepticism and disillusionment of modern society.

Certainly modern society has disillusionment and scepticism, although a modest level of disillusionment and scepticism is not a bad thing.

It indicates experience of life, and perhaps a level of maturity.

If scepticism is a problem, there are plenty of examples of modern day societies where religion plays a defining role and scepticism is off the menu.

The government of Iran would be one, a model of toleration and spiritual values – or perhaps not.

The United States has a enormous number of people who believe in the Christian message, or at least their own curious interpretation of it, but it can’t seem to organise basic medical care for tens of millions of their least wealthy citizens.

The meek may inherit the Earth, but they can’t get an operation when they need it.

The way we act towards each other is important, but a good life is not dependent on religious belief.

Albert Einstein, who held moderate socialist views, wrote the following in an article on religion in the New York Times Magazine, on November 9, 1930.

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Victor Billot is an atheist. He lives in Dunedin.

Contrary to received wisdom, atheists have diverse social, political and economic views, says Victor Billot. What they do have in common is not believing in God.

In a Faith and Reason column, published in the past few months, the writer – a pastor – started his discourse on religion by quoting Karl Marx as saying “Religion is the opiate of the people”.