Fork it over or shut the hell Up, Mrs. Rowling

I’m one of the biggest Harry Potter fans you’ll ever meet, but this kind of bullshit is almost enough to sour my love: 

JK ROWLING yesterday condemned a decision to deny multiple sclerosis patients in Scotland access to a drug on the grounds of cost.  The Harry Potter author, whose mother suffered MS, broke her silence on the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s refusal to recommend Tysabri ahead of a debate on the drug by MSPs tomorrow. . . .

“I know from personal experience that MS can have a devastating effect on everyone who comes into contact with it. My mother suffered terribly with MS and it was so frustrating that there was little or nothing doctors could do to help her.

“If a drug can help tackle MS – particularly the very aggressive type of relapsing MS we are talking about – it should not be ruled out because of cost alone.  Once again, decisions about treatment are being made by accountants rather than clinicians, and I hope MSPs will speak up on behalf of the thousands of families affected by MS across Scotland,” Rowling said.

It is thought that about 1,000 patients in Scotland with aggressive MS could benefit from Tysabri.

Yet another celebrity asking the common man to foot the bill for their smug social imperatives.  J.K. Rowling is worth between 500 and 600 million pounds–and that’s before the release of the next Harry Potter movie, not to mention the final book in the series (God knows how much money she’ll have after those releases), not to mention the flood of royalties she’ll bring in, hand over fist, for the rest of her life.   The treatment she’s so riled up about costs about 15,000 pounds per year per patient.   Peanuts.

It’s real touching and all for Rowling to evoke the memory of her mother’s suffering, but if it’s so important, why not donate some of her vast and ever-expanding fortune to the cause?  Rowling could pay for all 1,000 patients’ Tysabri for a year were she willing to donate 15 million.  A mere drop in the bucket of her fortune, and surely a good running start for Scotland–yet Rowling hasn’t done it.  Nooooo, that’s the responsibility of already-overtaxed common working people. 

Reminds me of Sarah Jessica Parker, the wealthy and famous actress, bitching because her beloved relatives could barely scrape by on the welfare provided by New York City. 

‘Scuse me while I go vomit.

~ by lewdandlascivious on February 28, 2007.

7 Responses to “Fork it over or shut the hell Up, Mrs. Rowling”

  1. At first, I thought this was going to be a post on how we are all eagerly awaiting the next book and teasers are just cruel.

    My next thought was, “Yeah, no KIDDING this happens when we have govenrment-regulated health care, whoops, I mean ‘universal’ health care.” Health decisions will be made out of political expediency and cost, leaving people high and dry if the government doesn’t have the funds for top-of-the-line health care.

    One of my humanities teachers in high school said that government is about taking care of infinite need with finite resources. Once you put it that way, you know that it can’t provide food, water, housing, health, and happiness to every human who wants it. Finite resources, Ms. Rowling. Would she prefer that MS patients get their drugs and the homeless starve?

  2. Thats a liberal for you…always eager to spends someone else’s money.

  3. Yes, that’s the core of liberalism: Give away someone else’s money by force of law, then congratulate yourself for being generous and release some endorphins. Aaaaaaah.

    I’m the old-fashioned type who prefers to give away my own money.

  4. It’s so infuriating. Same thing with Al “Energy Hog” Gore: remember how it came out in the 2000 elections that he and Tipper only give a few hundred dollars to charity each year? As opposed to the evil, greedy Bush, who constantly gives….

  5. Right, I thought I was the only one who remembered that about Gore. Funny how the media never played up that hypocrisy either.

  6. I think the theory is that it is so very immoral to have money that is made from a corporation or Big Oil that it is the height of morality to help those people atone by spending it for them.

    Basic economic reality: no one will want to earn money (i.e. contribute knowledge and labour to the economy) if he cannot keep it.

    Of course, Peter Singer thinks that all rich people should give away 35% of their pre-tax income (failing to recognize that such an amount is ALL post-tax income!) – because it’s “moral” to tell other people how to spend their money. Do these people need a little Ayn Rand in their lives?

  7. They need a slap upside their sawdust-filled heads, is what they need. Harrumph!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: