Wine and the state

EACH DAY I visit my computer to write a political blog which I have christened Polemic. It is a Right of centre political blog, and I have been adding to it for probably five years on a daily basis. Each day I start tapping the keys at about 13.00: I am joined in my creative struggle with a bottle of wine which I consume while I am typing. I usually finish my piece by about 15.30. After that I make additions and review a recently started short story. I review it daily; and may add an odd paragraph or two after I finish writing my blog.

            

             Each day I consume a bottle of wine plus two glass more from another bottle; but only while writing. It gives me the incentive to open myself up. My meaning is that I can express myself freely without any resultant misgiving discouraging me from writing openly and giving free expression; without the encumbrance of fearing what people think, which would, of course, inhibit my creativity (such as would be the case without the wine). Being plagued by doubt, as I am. I could not give vent to my thoughts without the stimulus garnered from the vine.

            

           Wine helps to unleash my true feelings; feelings which I may suppress, but are unlocked by the grape. I never get drunk. In fact at the age of 64; the last time I did get drunk was in the 1970s when I was in my twenties; and it was as expected of me, as it was any other young man of my age.

THE THING IS, modern society relies upon fear and guilt to function and demand cuts to the cost of the NHS; and the likes of myself have to pay the price. For instance; my daily consumption of wine without doubt exceeds the limit that some department or other within the NHS sees as boarder-line alcoholic; if not as yet, considered intoxicating enough to turn me into an alcoholic: until, that is, maybe the next NHS revision on consumption of alcohol is reduced even further because of the burden consumers of alcohol put on the NHS.

           

             I am approaching retirement next March. I will probably reach 70; but after that, I am living on borrowed time anyway; and who's to say that I will not fall fowl of dementia and have to be kept alive in some institution being looked after by a group of sadistic, and underpaid staff.

            

            This same state-inflicted guilt, also applies to smoking and obesity. The state is becoming ever more sinister. The use of the term "nanny state" is a euphemism  for state control over all sorts of social activities that were once considered normal as part of a free society where human beings took responsibility for themselves, but are today considered to be anti-social in their behaviour; and are therefore being added, almost on a daily basis, to the list of what not to do according to the state, and at what cost to the NHS.

            

            The state has control of our personnel freedom; and we have allowed it to become such. We are advised to drink no more than this or that for a healthy lifestyle; or eat this or that to stop obesity. The state now regulates our drinking and eating habits. How long will it be before our "unhealthy" ideas are undermined by such an approach.

            

            They justify themselves by saying it is putting a financial burden on the NHS…and this is the worm eating away at our freedom of choice. Because the taxpayer pays for our healthcare, and politicians distribute the taxes; both the NHS and the politicians feel they can force us to change whatever behaviour they feel not to be in our interests. This is because the individual has handed over responsibility to the state; and once you give that away; the state can dictate what you can eat or drink and in whatever quantities.

           

             The liberal state becomes your Victorian moralist state who you have given power to: for instance, its demand you stop smoking, and put limits on the consumption of alcohol you choose to drink. They also tell you to eat, not what you want to eat, but what they consider to be part of the best diet – all in the name of saving the NHS budget.

            

             In a society based on private medical insurance; none of this would be important. In such societies free-will is respected. It is not for the state to dictate your choices; but for the individual to decide for themselves. It is arrogant and nanny-statist to point a finger at a particular individual for eating the wrong kind of food, or drinking from outside of arbitrary set limits. Under a private system of medical care, the rights and wrongs of a particular form of behaviour does not matter…for as long as you can pay via medical insurance; no form of self-inflicted disease will be judged; but treated.

THE STATE IS becoming ever more involved in our daily life style choices. Choices which, if the state deems them inappropriate and a financial burden on the state controlled health service; then restrictions will surely follow. The latest is obesity. Europe has just ruled that obesity is a "disease"; the implication of which for the taxpayer and our country's deficit could prove dire. But as Europe rules… so must the UK obey.

            

            While writing this piece I have been drinking my wine, and have just finished a bottle – and as I hope you can realise from your reading of this piece, I am not in any way incoherent. My judgement, such as it is has not been rendered disjointed by the above piece.

            

             Private insurance is no soft option, but it is better than allowing the state to provide for your health care, as it dictates the kind of human behaviour you should follow if you wish to be treated by the NHS – I would sooner take my chances within the private sector. But then I am approaching 65 and retirement. Other, more younger citizens, may wish to continue to buy into state healthcare provision; but will have to meet its demands for longer waiting lists and times, to see a consultant.

            

             The NHS has treated me well; apart from two failures; one of which was a pulmonary embolism which went undetected for over 24 hours after being taken by ambulance to A & E. The other was an earlier failure by my GP practice, who delayed sending me to my local hospital in great pain for over week. I was anaemic and in great pain and required four units of blood when eventually sent to hospital; where they discovered I had a duodenal and gastric ulcer caused by the anti-inflammatory medication I was on for the treatment of my spondylitis.

            

             The reason I never turned to a no fee, no win lawyer, was because, up until these two instances; the NHS had treated me well and had rid me of a great deal of pain, as it had served me up with two new hips. But if tomorrow I fell afoul of the same life-threatening conditions then I would pursue a legal case against the NHS. In the meantime I will continue to drink the grape while working on my blog…an nothing can hinder my purpose in so doing.