Printable View
I know a woman (one of my Mum's collegues) who has what is probably terminal cancer, and yes, the most distressing bit is she doesn't accept it. She should be out doing things that are important to her and enjoying life, but instead she just keeps coming into work. It's sort of odd.Quote:
it was her inability to accept impending death that was by far the most distressing thing about the illness)
LolzQuote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
yeah welcome!
Now let me make a good left socialist from you!
I wander tough why so manny people find it normal that if somebody is wounded, you need to show a creditcard before they get help. Aren't they human because they might have not that much money? Indeed they aren't then why aren't they threated this way?
DA:
You do know how to get the inmates to bounce around the walls of our cages don't you?:laugh4:
I'd add one proviso if we're to head down the path of socialism.
Ammendment: In any year that you receive more money from the government than you pay in taxes to the government, you lose the franchise. Otherwise you have a system wherein too many representatives have a vested interest in putting more people on the dole simply as a means of job security.
And yes, I think we need such an ammendment now. If a majority of those who will be paying the freight for such programs still think they're a good idea, then the support is genuine and should be enacted.
Otherwise, what is intended as a means to redress imbalances and provide a safety net 'morph's into a system designed by the political ruling class to perpetuate their power.
Remember folks, in the USA we do not tax wealth. We tax income. Properly sheltered wealth is largely untouchable, allowing those with real economic clout to maintain their status and keeping all but a few lucky entrepeneurs out of the halls of real economic power. If you're saying we should tax the highest wage-earners more, you are REINFORCING the division between haves and have nots, not eliminating the barrier.
(Can you tell I just took a C.E. class in estate planning?!:beam: )
Yep, people need to realise this. I remember reading a survey done a while back-the majority of people interviewed, around 70 percent I think, said that they believed all life-prolonging treatments should be provided on the NHS, regardless of cost, which is pretty scary in itself. However, the kicker was that a majority of people also said they wouldn't be happy paying higher taxes to fund the health service!Quote:
The trouble is that your 100K drug probably denies ten people their hip replacement.
People want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Of course that is what people are going to say in a survey but ask someone who needs a hip replacement if they would like to skip the procedure to prolong someone else’s life or pay more for coverage and get their procedure too. ~D
This is the number 1 problem to the NHS, people complain when they get what they percieve as poor quality healthcare, but then hugely object to paying taxes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
It also annoys me when people complain about local hospitals to close down, the NHS tries to cut out unneeded hospitals so the money needed to maintain them can be redirected to others in the area to provide a greater quality of care, but people object to travelling an extra few miles, and so complain, the local council dont want to be seen as unpopular, and so the hospital stays... leeching money from the NHS when it could be better spent elsewhere, and still serve the local community just as well (the most recent example i'v come across recently is st Barts, which will be costing the NHS money for years now, especially as it is already in debt..
add to this the high cost of new drugs that the NHS is forced to buy through the government needing the good publicity, and well... the NHS can't win... people want a perfect health service for free!
:2thumbsup:
DA - Though what you state might be an improvement over your current situation over there, all you are proposing is an awefully unequal two tier system, in which the poor and those who cannot afford better services get fobbed off with what you state as 'universal' healthcare and schooling, yet those who can pay can still get fabulous treatment - at even cheaper prices!!! - at better institutions. That isn't far different to the current situation over there is it? Ah yes, at the moment you merely don't think of the poor at all, at least this way you clear your conscience first!
If you actually want to help everyone in society, you don't build in to a system a way of creating such huge unbalance, such as private institutions who refuse all but those who can pay and school voucher systems which completely undermine a public schooling system. Have Private hospitals yes, but for use within the public sector, rather than have a voucher system make every school better. Etc..
...which is utterly unrealistic unless the government outlaws private hospitals and forbids people to go abroad for treatment.
As long as there are people willing to pay for treatment, people will provide the service.
The rich few will always be able to pay for better than is provided for the masses, until the impossible time where every patient is seen immediately by the best specialist in their field for the most modern treatment.
Why is it that people are happy that houses cost different amouonts of money, as do cars and to be honest everything else.
But for some reason healthcare and education somehow there isn't supposed to be a two tier system in a free market economy... :wall: :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Maybe because even in this capitalist system, we are led to believe that everyone can get to the top of the social scale, regardless of their position at birth. But a system where the poor do not even get educated somehow flies in the face of this or a system where the poor do not get effective treatment for their ills, flies in the face of this. Not to mention that in a 'civilised' country, which is one of the richest in this world, we cannot even provide a society which allows those born of complete innocence to the surroundings they find themselves in, a life not destined for misery and obscurity.Quote:
Why is it that people are happy that houses cost different amouonts of money, as do cars and to be honest everything else.
But for some reason healthcare and education somehow there isn't supposed to be a two tier system in a free market economy...
Or how about because it is simply wrong, on a moral and theoretical level.
What I stated is also not unrealistic at all, it is in fact what this current government is actively trying to do, with hospitals at least. The inclusion of private hospitals into our current system has been a great move forward along with the inclusion of private companies to do the donkey work for the public institution that is the NHS. If we can get patients through the NHS by using private hospitals, I don't think any person in their right mind has a problem with it. Look at Sweden, the best healthcare system in the world, though it is not a nationalised service in principle - there is a tiny payment every year which is the same for everyone - it uses this principle and it works.
There is also a difference between creating a two tier system in which the super rich are at the top and everyone else is on the 'second' tier and that of a system where everyone but the poor is on that top tier, as I am sure you recognise.
We are told that we can all get to the top. Even though statistically this is of course nothing more than a lie that is promulgated as it's in no one's interests to reveal the truth.
If your parents aren't clever, chances are, you'll not be that bright either. if they have no interest in schooling chances are the kids will get this attitude. If the parents drink and smoke, chances are the kids will get it second hand from a young age and will themselves start soon. If the parents have an army of kids at a young age, the chances are that the kids will do so as well.
Unless society intervenes to levels that would stagger China, this isn't going to change.
The NHS does, most of the time, to most people provide effective treatment. It provides treatment that was unheard of 50 years ago.
You seem to wish to get rid of private institutions, yet provide no way of achieving this.
There should be many more than two tiers. A multi tier system that gives to all what society can afford and then people topping up with what they wish.
Private hospitals in the NHS are a disaster. They do simple work, and when (and they do) screw things up it gets dumped on the NHS. So their numbers seem good, as they don't look for problems. And they get a steady number of patients which obviously means that the "proper" NHS hospitals suffer.
I'm surprised that you've bought the government take on PFIs hook line and sinker like this - especially when so many think they are a bad idea.
Oh, for the record the American system is appalling.
~:smoking:
I have not taken the government line hook line and sinker, merely looked around at the best system and seen that it is a sensible way of doing things if done properly. Tax heavily but balance that with significant benefits - benefits for everyone. Use an active private sector but only in terms of supporting public institutions. Manipulate the market and have government as a significant aspect of life in society, though that doesn't have to be central government, local government can be just as effective.
I don't want to get rid of private institutions just modify them, that can be done easily and I simply do not agree with your outlook on life in society for those from poorer backgrounds. It would be quite possible for those from poor backgrounds to have social mobility if the proper services were given to them. It is a lie that social mobility is easy in this capitalist system but only a lie because of the system, not because it is impossible.
If you tax private healthcare to much, two things are going to happen:
those that otherwise sacrifice for better treatment can't afford it at all, so have to go on the NHS
Others will go abroad for treatment where the tax isn't so high, and therefore the treatment.
In essence the usual "solution" to all problems of taxing everyone and then wondering why everyone doesn't go along with this and instead goes elsewhere.
What system is there where social mobility is so good? I am a firm advocate of a meritocracy where the poor but bright are elevated. In that case bring back Grammer schools and Assisted Places to help the gifted. My parents are both products of this system (father Grammer, Mother scholarship), and myself and siblings were on assisted places.
Grandfather: plumber
Parents Teachers
Myself Doctor
There! Social mobility from social class 4 to 1 in 3 generations.
~:smoking:
Great arguments on both sides. Please allow me to clarify the logic behind my reasoning:
I seek not an equalization of education, health care, nor pension. I do not desire, whatsoever, to provide undeserved benefits to the lazy nor punish the wealthy for their success.
I am a capitalist first and foremost. I fully understand that this will create a two-tiere system that will contribute to the perception of an already existing divide.
But from this perception of division, a concrete opportunity for advancement and achievement will be created. All individuals would have not only the freedom to succeed as currently exists, but also the essential resources to do so.
The logic is that there can be no more excuses. All citizens will have a basic guaranteed starting position in the rat race. The responsibility to excel will rest with them. Think about the following:
(1) An individual will recieve the essential care necessary to survive and the opportunity for exceptional care should they choose to pay for it. The affordability and quality of private care would encourage many to pay out of pocket.
(2) An individual will be empowered upon reaching adulthood to contribute to society with a specialized education based on their ambitions- be those ambitions grand or mediocre. The choice to "step up" to private education will also remain and so long as there is a demand for affordable private education, a supply will remain.
(3) The specifics of a public pension system do not necessarily include total public funding. Defined Contribution remains a viable option so long as these are backed by the federal government.
Finally, and only partially related, I would like to see further privatization of government administration. There is no reason that bureaucracies, such as the DMV, et al, cannot be privatized with mixed public/private funding of operations. The U.S. post office is as efficient as it is today because of the introduction of competition years ago. I do not recall, in my life, having something "lost in the mail".
Warm Regards. You leftist liberals. :wink2: ~D
There are three kinds of lies....I assume you know the rest. Besides, in your next post you say yourself you (and your parents) succesfully climbed the social ladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Even something only affects 1% of the population, that would still be 100 000 people in Belgium alone. You're a doctorn you should know how small an error rate a drug may have for it to be allowed. That's because even a small percentage often means a whole lot of people.
This is often assumed, but I'm not sure how accurate this is (correlation sure, but how strong), regardless there a plenty of exceptions and it's hard to 'measure' intelligence.Quote:
If your parents aren't clever, chances are, you'll not be that bright either.
My mother never finished HS, my dad often laughs how he fell asleep when 'studying' (he's an electrician). I'm working on my second Master's.Quote:
if they have no interest in schooling chances are the kids will get this attitude.
My father used to smoke when I was a kid, I never smoked.Quote:
If the parents drink and smoke, chances are the kids will get it second hand from a young age and will themselves start soon.
I know plenty of cases where this (or the opposite case) isn't true.Quote:
If the parents have an army of kids at a young age, the chances are that the kids will do so as well.
Honestly, Rory, you're threating people like they were just statistics, while all you've said might be true for the majority, that doesn't mean the minority is negligable.Quote:
Unless society intervenes to levels that would stagger China, this isn't going to change.
When approaching a topic concerning a society, one has to go with statistical generalisations. Using a single person as an example is pointless, as would lead to impractical and / or implausible policies.
The percentage of poor, who are bright and who want to work hard out of the total population is proobably less than 1%
In the UK, the system of grammer schools allowed the small but important children from poor but bright families to get a head start.
~:smoking: