Blogs

Yes, the NHS Must Treat Fat Folk

27 March 2012

2:08 AM

27 March 2012

2:08 AM

A truly repellent piece by Cristina Odone in the Telegraph in which she argues for NHS-rationing by liefestyle and wealth. That’s not quite how she puts it, for sure, but her suggestion that (middle-class) pensioners are losing out to (lower-class) fat people and that something should be bloody done about this is the kind of classist call for healthcare rationing that well, let her make her case herself…

[A]ge comes to us all, and is not the result of  lifestyle choices. There are plenty of conditions, though, that are the direct result of bad habits, poor diet, and the wrong choices [Sic]. These conditions range from obesity and diabetes to smoking-related diseases like emphesema. If a 20-stone, 30-something woman comes into hospital with a bad diabetic attack, does she deserve to be at the front of the queue or the back? She has chosen to stuff her face with Mars bars and Coke, and is now suffering the consequences of her choice. She cannot claim ignorance of the dangers of her diet: the Government has carpet-bombed us with health advice, from schools to GP practices. Class no longer regulates access to healthy living: everyone who can watch the telly, let alone read the magazines, knows that a high-fat diet will make you look bad and feel worse.

Does the obese 30-something lay claim to NHS services and a hospital bed when this means thousands of others will have to do without?

The septuagenarian who develops breast cancer has done nothing wrong – except grow old. The NHS has to consider that there are deserving cases and undeserving ones. Age should not be a barrier to optimum care; but bad habits should be.

Is this view repellent and revolting? Yes, it is. Why is it revolting and repellent? Because it demands that the state spend more time adjudicating your healthcare needs on the basis of lifestyle contributions to your healthcare needs than on those actual needs themselves. It is an invitation to yet more government interference in everything you eat, drink or smoke. It makes the state your fitness advisor. And not just your fitness advisor but your fitness commandant. Do as we say or get to the back of the queue.

This is one of the criticisms American opponents of government-run healthcare often make. It is not an unfair criticism, though of course wholly-private insurance based systems also discriminate against people who fail to observe the pieties of received wisdom of best lifestyle-practice.

This brings me to a libertarian defence of the NHS:  it may not be an efficient system or, by international standards, an especially marvellous one, but it is for the price we pay for it a just about decent-enough system. It is neither great nor awful but somewhere inbetween and at least it does not ration by ability to pay. Nevertheless, it also has this within it: the poor pay enough for it as it is. And it should protect us from government, odd though that must seem and is.

[Alt-Text]


Remember: per capita spending on the NHS is roughly £2,000 a year. A 20-a-day smoker pays roughly £2,500 a year in tobacco duty alone. Those that drink will pay more on top of that. These are the arguments for these taxes: make those whose lifestyle-choices we dislike pay for the costs of all of this. Nevermind that, over a lifetime, smokers and drinkers actually cost the NHS less than non-drinkers and non-smokers. As we move towards a war on sweet or salty food – and move we will, I am afraid – the fat will pay their way too.

And, if you agree with this, that’s fine. It will not stop the public health racket from calling for ever-more punitive measures to be levied on those people unwise enough to make lifestyle choices of which they disapprove (an ever-extending list of choices, incidentally) but it is at least semi-plausible to send "signals" (even if they are unsupported by revenues/expenditure data) to discourage this sort of dreadful chavish behaviour.

Nevertheless, this is the point of the NHS. Treatment according to need not some trumped-up definition of moral-worth. A nationwide, compulsory insurance-pool may be an inefficient means of delivering healthcare but it should have the benefit of affording it according to need not lifestyle. That is why it is designed as a universal insurance pool and why those who make choices of which the state (foolishly) disapproves tend to pay more, albeit usually indirectly. In a better world the universalism would be a protection from the health-police. You know, like careless drivers, careless livers (in every sense) already pay more.

Cristina Odone differs and appears to be some kind of lifestyle-martinet better suited to a role as a Commissar of Health in one of those countries that used to have Commissars of Health. That said, she’s probably well-suited to a job advising this government on how they can mandate (or "further encourage") lifestyle choices.

Privileging near-death, non-smoking, teetotal pensioners seems about as fiscally-reckless a notion as you could hope for. Should the old be treated better by nurses (salt of the earth!)? Sure they should. Are the old automatically more deserving than the non-old? Not necessarily. At least drinkers and smokers tend to die pretty quickly and relatively cheaply. Heroes to the last wheeze.

PS: Last Ms Odone was heard of in these parts was when she complained about how expensive it is to send her kids to Westminster School. Feel free to edit her Wikipedia entry,

 

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice blog.

  • Noa.

    By looking to determine and control debate on what you deem appropriate, except on your own chosen terms, you seek to control and so eliminate it. A classic Marxist ploy and recognised for what it is.

    In all, there’s more than a whiff of the Gulag about your posts, both sinister and repellent.

  • Noa.

    Continued…

    That you consider this problem mitigated because it is spread across the country is simply fatuous.
    The most remarkable point about your post is the way you seek to erase all reference to Africans on the spurious ground of racism.
    Would you leap so quickly to the defence of a specific class of HIV carrying Europeans or Americans? Of any hue? I doubt it.
    Why would they take offence if one did? As a European I wouldn’t, for one.

  • Noa.

    A reply light on source, fact, analysis and objectivity. So what I expected, but then you are trying to justify the unjustifiable; the congery of continuing departmental failures that has created and continues to permit the presence of a HIV infected foreign group 3 times the size of the City of London. And, remarkably from a causal perspective, perhaps not from a medical treatment view, does not wish to acknowledge it.

  • Steve Williams

    continued . . .

    “Baseless accusations of racism reflect the political polarity of the accuser, are an attempt to stifle opposition and debate to socialist dogma and are chillingly redolent of the political atmosphere of the early 20th century in Russia and Germany.”

    Hmm. Previously I was a socialist, now I’m a communist and a fascist. It’s funny – three guesses and you still haven’t worked out my political orientation. Do keep trying though.

    “The prevalence rates for HIV among adults at the end of 2003 were, according to the UN, Zambia 16.5%, Zimbabwe 24.6%, and Malawi 14.2%. The total number of cases was estimated at 3.6 million. “

    Yes, it’s a humanitarian catastrophe. Britain already provides funding for HIV prevention and early treatment out of its international development budget. A small portion of that also ends up being spent on people from those countries and others, who are already in this country suffering from the same disease. I’m sorry, I just don’t regard this as a policy mistake.

    “Steve Williams, noa has a point . . . if we are to become the treatment centre for HIV sufferers worldwide, the monolith will collapse even sooner”

    No, he doesn’t really, for which see above. The NHS is not going to collapse because of the health demands of a few thousand people, which make up half of a tenth of a percent of the total numbers it cares for.

    Furthermore, what both you and Noa have studiously avoided acknowledging is that this policy is already in place in Scotland and Wales, and the last time I checked, hospitals in the provinces were still open, and the NHS there hadn’t ‘collapsed’.

    “also, you reckon you can force yourself to debate without labeling?”

    To be clear – the language at issue here was “fat AIDS carrying health tourist Africans”. Do you think that language would be appropriate in Parliament? At a board meeting, or in a business situation? Do you think a sub editor would print it unchallenged in a newspaper? How do you think someone from Africa, HIV-positive or not, would react upon reading those words? Clearly, language like that wouldn’t be appropriate in politics, business or the media. It would do both of you some good to consider why that is.

    Once again, none of the media stories addressing this issue mentioned Africans once. Noa did essentialise Africans as HIV-sufferers, and HIV-sufferers as Africans, and that is racist. Nobody told him to write ‘Africans’, he could just as easily, and far more accurately, have written ‘HIV-sufferers’ instead. He didn’t; and that tells you something.

  • Steve Williams

    continued . . .

    “I referred to a specific class or group of “… AIDS carrying health tourist Africans””

    Yes, and that was the language that I said was bigoted.

    “This class currently numbers 30,000”

    I haven’t seen this number. The BBC News article on the same story, for example, claims it is 25,000.

    “That is a group which is manifestly large enough to present a threat to the NHS and the general public.”

    Not really. The NHS looks after around 65 million adults in the UK. Even if your figure of 30,000 is correct, that still accounts for 0.05% of the total. And these people don’t need constant treatment, just a course of drugs. They were already previously entitled to courses of drugs for every other infectious disease, if they possessed one, and they haven’t brought the NHS to its knees so far. 30,000 people just isn’t actually that many. What’s more, they aren’t all located in one place, but spread across many different NHS Trust areas.

    The broader point, that you don’t seem to understand, is that the point of the policy is to save money. Sometimes, we can spend a little money to save a lot more. The Chief Medical Officer claims early treatment of HIV can reduce its spread by 96%. That is a lot of cost saved, in both human and financial terms. The government supports the policy PRECISELY BECAUSE it will be cheaper in the medium term.

    “As to repatriation itself; it is the clear duty of a responsible government to remove failed asylum seekers; that they may be AIDS carriers is incidental. Their treatment is the responsibility of their own government, not the UK.”

    It already IS incidental to anyone’s asylum application. Having HIV does not qualify anyone for asylum in the UK, and it doesn’t preclude anyone from it either. After this sentence, I must admit I was confused as to what you actually want the government to do differently. When failed asylum seekers are deported, it IS their home governments who get the job of caring for them. If your problem is with the speed of deportation following a failed asylum claim, you’re in luck, because that window of time will shrink following the cuts in legal aid.

  • Steve Williams

    Right, I’m going to reply to this one last time, and then that’s it.

    “the present UK government nor its predecessor has not the will or the ability to remove foreign nationals who are here without good cause reason”

    People do, in fact, get deported if their asylum application fails. For example, in the 4th quarter of 2011, there were 4,073 asylum decisions, of which 65% were rejected applications. In each quarter of the year there are between 4,000 and 5,100 asylum applications, and a majority are rejected each time (statistics.gov.uk)

    “they are in consensus that this position should remain unchallenged”

    There is no concensus. You are simply wrong. In fact, all parties agree that failed asylum seekers should be deported. Read their manifestos if you don’t believe me, or just watch the news occasionally.

    “If the UK immigration authorities had been competent the problem of health tourism would not have arisen.”

    It hasn’t arisen, because it isn’t a problem. Failed asylum seekers make up a small proportion of those treated for HIV. The vast majority of foreign citizens treated are here on work or study visas. These people are employees or students wanted by their institutions. The government presently doesn’t consider being HIV positive a disqualifying factor when considering a visa application. You want that to change; fair enough. I disagree, but your opinion here is fair. However, the problem isn’t with immigration authorities, but with government policy.

  • Baron

    Steve Williams, noa has a point, the NHS has enough on its plate to cater for the needs and increasingly the wants of the local hoi polloi, if we are to become the treatment centre for HIV sufferers worldwide, the monolith will collapse even sooner, it may be near impossible (and rather inhuman) to repatriate those already here, but it should be doable to stop more coming in.

    also, you reckon you can force yourself to debate without labeling?

  • Noa.

    The prevalence rates for HIV among adults at the end of 2003 were, according to the UN, Zambia 16.5%, Zimbabwe 24.6%, and Malawi 14.2%. The total number of cases was estimated at 3.6 million.
    In that year, following the issue of 6545 visas to Africans of The Health Protection Agencys annual report makes it abundantly clear that these three countries are a major source of HIV infection in Britain. The immigration figures suggest that about 6,500 people a year continue to be granted visas for admission to Britain without any check on their HIV status. Malawians do not even need visas. 47 other countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States require HIV tests of immigrants. The application is then considered in the light of all the circumstances. Britain should follow suit without further delay.

  • Noa.

    Continued.
    The expulsion of failed asylum seekers, many African and many with AIDS, is
    “ And, you might want to note, despite your tone of complete bewilderment, this is a view shared by Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, and that it is you who is in a radical minority here, not I.
    You should not mistake anger for bewilderment. That neither the present UK government nor its predecessor has not the will or the ability to remove foreign nationals who are here without good cause reason and that they are in consensus that this position should remain unchallenged is remarkable only for its duplicity. The NHS administrators, in seeking to extend free treatment, are merely seeking to fix in one part of government a problem which should never have been allowed to arise in another. If the UK immigration authorities had been competent the problem of health tourism would not have arisen. A simple solution would be to require all travellers to carry health insurance, and for all African travellers, AIDS being prevalent in that continent, to produce a certificate that they are free of AIDS. As a clear majority of my fellow abhor mass immigration and its disastrous consequences for our country, and are horrified by the profligacy and waste which has created over a trillion pounds in debt, it is you, and not I, who is in a radical majority.
    “I accused you of racism because you wrote something racist. You essentialised Africans as HIV sufferers and you asserted that this group of people was large enough to present a threat to the NHS, without providing any evidence to back up that assertion.”
    I referred to a specific class or group of “… AIDS carrying health tourist Africans”. This class currently numbers 30,000. That is a group which is manifestly large enough to present a threat to the NHS and the general public. That does not classify all Africans as AIDS carriers and is not, in your debate precluding terms, racist. In your terminology Africans are a race and all comments are judged subjectively as racist on whether you agree with them.
    As to the BNP policy to which you refer, I neither know of it or care. My objection is on the grounds of the incompetence of successive governments which has allowed a preventable medical problem of serious proportions to develop and whose easy solution is to maintain rather than remove it at taxpayer expense. As to repatriation itself; it is the clear duty of a responsible government to remove failed asylum seekers; that they may be AIDS carriers is incidental. Their treatment is the responsibility of their own government, not the UK.
    Baseless accusations of racism reflect the political polarity of the accuser, are an attempt to stifle opposition and debate to socialist dogma and are chillingly redolent of the political atmosphere of the early 20th century in Russia and Germany.

  • Noa.

    “I consider it is the job of the government to prevent infectious diseases from becoming more widespread than they already are, especially among the British population.”
    We are agreed on that.
    “ If this is done more efficiently and humanely by treating this small group of people, instead of attempting forced repatriations (and it is), then I support that policy.”
    “This small group of people”, numbers 30,000 at present is ONE THIRD of the AIDS patients treated by the NHS, and is increasing, possibly exponentially as free care becomes available under the proposed programme of largesse proposed by NHS administrators and costs in the region of £300 million per annum in direct medical care alone.

  • Steve Williams

    I consider it is the job of the government to prevent infectious diseases from becoming more widespread than they already are, especially among the British population. If this is done more efficiently and humanely by treating this small group of people, instead of attempting forced repatriations (and it is), then I support that policy. And, you might want to note, despite your tone of complete bewilderment, this is a view shared by Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, and that it is you who is in a radical minority here, not I.

    I accused you of racism because you wrote something racist. You essentialised Africans as HIV sufferers, and you asserted that this group of people was large enough to present a threat to the NHS, without providing any evidence to back up that assertion. I quite deliberately didn’t accuse you of supporting the BNP – how would I know if you do or don’t? I pointed out, as a matter of fact, that they are the only political party that has proposed a policy of forced repatriation of foreign citizens with infectious diseases.

  • Noa.

    You consider it is the responsibility of the UK taxpayer to support people who have no right to be here because they have an infectious disease and may contaminate the UK’s population?

    Even the previous government made some feeble efforts to remove failed asylum seekers.

    But, along with the accusation of racism, a quick sly reference to the BNP is a common socialist troll tactic used in attempting to close down opposing views.

  • Steve Williams

    It’s not strange at all. The only party proposing any such thing is the BNP, and I’m not a BNP supporter (obviously).

  • Noa.

    30,000 Africans are already being treated at UK taxpayer expense.
    Strange that you support a policy which will encourages more to come, rather than repatriating those here with a view to concentrating resources on the UK’s citizens.

  • Steve Williams

    So, it turns out catching HIV is expensive for the taxpayer? So, maybe, it might be a good idea to take steps to help prevent people catching HIV in the first place?

    Which, funnily enough, is what the policy does.

    You say:

    “That seems sufficient incentive to take a plane to London for retro viral treatment, the august (and meaningless) assurances of NHS bureaucrats regarding health tourism monitoring notwithstanding.”

    This policy is already in place in Wales and Scotland, yet 40 million sub-Saharan Africans notably haven’t turned up in Edinburgh or Cardiff.

  • Noa.

    Continued

    Of the current 91,000 AIDS sufferers in the UK, one third are African; a disproportionate number compared to the 0.6% of Africans in the U K’s total population.

    As to cost: in 2006, the provision of care and triple-drug anti retro viral therapy cost a little over £18,000 for each asymptomatic patient, and increased the sicker patients became, costing £21,500 for those with symptomatic HIV disease and over £41,000 for patients with AIDS. Care and anti retro viral therapy consisting of four drugs was calculated to cost between £22,775 and £48,000 per patient per year depending on an individual’s health.

    Excluding the incalculable long term effect of the proposed changes, by 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. increasing to £1.065 billion when the cost of social and community care was included.

  • Noa.

    “you might want to be careful about those accusations of racism..”

    Strange how the very mention of ‘African’ can result in the accusation of racist. Still as this article shows. Not mentioning can lead to the same accusation by those who wish to preclude comment. That accusation was first made by you, presumably in order to silence a view you disagree with.

    Southern Africa is hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, accounting for the vast majority of the 40 million infections and the daily death toll of 8,000. Despite the advances in AIDS treatment taken for granted in rich countries, more than 70 percent of Africans who need it are still waiting for treatment.

    That seems sufficient incentive to take a plane to London for retro viral treatment, the august (and meaningless) assurances of NHS bureaucrats regarding health tourism monitoring notwithstanding. Being in the care of the state asylum seekers will be entitled to treatment pending review of their application.

  • Steve Williams

    “But I suppose your own inherent racism made the assumption of Blackness, and therefore leapt axiomatically to racism.”

    Yes, that’s it, I’m sure. From the link:

    “Ministers are backing calls for non-UK residents to be treated for the condition as part of efforts to protect the wider public . . . The Department of Health said that safeguards would be introduced to prevent “health tourism” . . . Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: “This measure will protect the public and brings HIV treatment in to line with all other infectious diseases. Treating people with HIV means they are very unlikely to pass the infection on to others. “Tough guidance will ensure this measure is not abused.” Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies said that effective treatment of HIV reduced its spread by up to 96% . . . Department of Health aides said there was little scope for somebody coming to the UK specifically for treatment as the process took months to administer and monitor.” Sounds terrifying! How dare the government attempt to protect the population from HIV?

    By the way, that link doesn’t mention Africans, fat, thin, black, white or otherwise, at any point, so you might want to be careful about those accusations of racism.

  • Noa.

    It appears to me that you’re the racist Steve. I spoke of Africans, not mentioning colour or race. there are white Africans too. But I suppose your own inherent racism made the assumption of Blackness, and therefore leapt axiomatically to racism.

    You seem a clever enough chap to do your own research, if you can be bothered, but here’s a starter.
    *ttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/28/foreign-hiv-carriers-to-receive-free-hiv-treatment_n_1305863.html
    Draw your own conclusions on who will benefit from the expansion of NHS capability in one area, whilst restrictions are contemplated or imposed in others.

  • Steve Williams

    Mmm. I’m not sure “fat AIDS carrying health tourist Africans” quite counts as an ‘uncomfortable truth’ Noa. It definitely is uncomfortable, as it usually is when unpleasant people say things that are overtly racist. The part I’m questioning is whether it’s true. Care to produce any statistics on the subject? Any actual evidence?

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Of course, leaving out the morbidly obese, overweight people live longer than ‘ideal’ weight people. And if the NHS are so worried about diabetic demands, they will leave the golalposts alone for a while. They have been actively recruiting borderline type 2s by lowering the acceptable blood glucose numbers though the treatment is a little expensive and you can never come off it( and your scrips are free for life), and the clinics are completely over-stretched dealing with new diagnoses. And now they want to recruit early dementia sufferers too.

  • Jon stack

    Fergus, I didn’t say this should apply to all illness in all cases, or to what value in each case, did I? I’m not a bastard.

  • teledu

    How many of the anti-fatty posters on here would refuse to allow a fat plumber to mend their burst pipes? Or a fat garage mechanic to repair their car? Or indeed a fat heart surgeon to perform heart surgery on them? Not many (if any) I’d wager.
    BTW I’m not fat.

  • Noa.

    My last post should have read:
    “..Like the rest of your ilk you don’t like to address uncomfortable truths…”

  • Noa.

    Steve Williams
    “Ugh. That’s quite some racist trolling there, Noa”.
    Which generated a stock reflex response from a socialist troll like yourself, Steve. Like the rest of your ilk you like to address uncomfortable truths, preferring to preclude debate by assuming a faux liberalism.

  • Steve Williams

    “Now then, what’s your take on fat AIDS carrying health tourist Africans getting free treatment?”

    Ugh. That’s quite some racist trolling there, Noa.

    Alex – you don’t need reference to how the NHS is funded to see the stupidity of Odone’s idea, you just need basic logic. If a fat person has a health scare brought about because of their weight, then they may very well decide to get fit and lose weight, and then live a long and happy life. If an old person has a health scare brought about because of their age, well, they can’t decide to become young can they?

    Or, more technically, the concept of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is actually useful, and we shouldn’t scrap it to appease Odone’s aesthetic objection to fat people.

  • Noa.

    I quite agree Alex.
    Fat people have the same right to die as anyone else under the NHS knife, as long as they’ve contributed to the cost of it.
    Now then, what’s your take on fat AIDS carrying health tourist Africans getting free treatment?

  • Baron

    Fergus, sir, language, language.

    To ensure failing health ain’t the end of one’s life is not that different from insuring that a burnt out house isn’t. For centuries people insured against all sorts of risk, the industry knows how to figure the odds, we all know how it works, instead of spending billions on Mars bars, pints, fags or buying tickets to watch young men kicking the ball mostly badly, getting paid millions for it, the vast majority of us would spend the cash on health protection, those who didn’t want to would die in agony, the private insurers would be required by law to cater for a specified percentage of those who wanted to insure, couldn’t afford the whole of the premium.

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Yeahm that free at the point of use thing is irresistible. Why many a time I go to the surgery at my GP of a monday morning just to get a free meeting with some harrassed professional who doesn’t know who I am or bother to read my notes. Fair makes my day, it does. And the free operations! Such fun.

  • Baron

    Alex, but sooner or later we’ll have to have some mechanism that dampens, cuts, suppresses demand for NHS services, if we don’t, the monstrosity will implode, Baron has said it so often it pains him to say it again: one cannot run successfully an outfit where the funding of it is limited, demand for its output limitless, it ain’t doable, miracles just do not happen.

  • Kittler

    Aye, all these septuagenarians hoovering up all the cash with their decades of pensions and care costs.
    and the free bus travel and TV.
    Good old fatties, we couldnae afford tae be without you.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Jon Stack,may I say I have never heard of a dafter idea. You are taxing people for being ill. If you’ve got leprosy then you use up all your vouchers, you profligate bastard.

  • Ian Walker

    The Logan’s Run solution springs to mind.

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Smokers, of course.

    Drinkers. First we’ll stop selling it cheap, then we’ll pick on the ones who drink at home.

    Fat people. We all know they do it to themselves. On purpose. Because they are not as able as you or I to contain their appetites.

    Anybody with a disease that MIGHT have been caused by drinking. Any liver, pancreas, kidney problem. They are probably secret home drinkers anyway.

    Old people. That dementia thing, that’s a lifestyle choice. And anyway, pensioners stole our inheritance.

    Accident victims? We’ll reclaim the money from the insurance firm.

    Sunday afternoon soccer injury? Well, that’s optional and therefore chargeable.

    There you go, a start in moral worth assessment. Much more to be done in this promising field.

  • Barry

    Why would someone with diabetes be in the same queue as someone with breast cancer?

  • Jon stack

    If you make something “free” at the point of use then inevitably you encourage demand. The problem is, the NHS provides no price signals at all. This doesn’t have to be cash per se. It can be vouchers, and each one of us gets a certain amount to spend before the cash charges cut in.

  • Fergus Pickering

    My wife quoted to me an article, in the Telegraph actually, that argued that much obesity (certainly a class thing as a visit to your local Asda will show, is to do with the extra ingestion of sugar in food, sugar put there by manufacturers to replace the fat they took out during the last health scare in the 1970s. The fellos, very possibly some mad doctor, says that our sugar consumption has risen by 30% since 1990, not from eating bags of the stuff, but just from eating food, like bread for instance, or soup, which contains far more suger than it used to. This is cheap food, the stuff poor people eat. It may be balls of course but it’s worth considering, that it’s OUR fault, you know, the middle-class wealth-creators.

  • chuckleberry_finn

    I love your blog Massie, but please stop with the typos. “a jst about decent” and “teetoal pensioners”… it seems a hearty dose of spell check is in order.
    Otherwise yes, Odone’s views are highly contemptible.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here