Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote:Not if you also had optional private healthcare.
Well, that still wouldn't be any different from the situation with Planed Parenthood.
Ketara wrote:And I would regard universal healthcare as being inherently advanced, as the requirements for such a system to develop are hallmarks of an advanced society, for example, you need a government, you need a moralistic society that believes that sick people should be treated, and so on.
Complexity doesn't guarantee advancement.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Who mentioned complexity?
If you re-read the sentence you quoted, you'll note that all I said was that for something like the NHS to be possible, a society must have evolved to a certain extent, in order to possess the factors necessary for its coming into existence.
Ketara wrote:Who mentioned complexity?
If you re-read the sentence you quoted, you'll note that all I said was that for something like the NHS to be possible, a society must have evolved to a certain extent, in order to possess the factors necessary for its coming into existence.
While I enjoy living in that sort of society, from a philosophical point of view I question what you mean by "evolved". How are we *more* evolved than say, medieval Europe. Evolved yes, but what does *more* mean. More what? Technology? Less Religion? Longer Lifespans? More Religion?
I am reluctant to draw analogies with biological evolution, but it is kind of like the idea of the "ladder" of evolution, that is, the idea that everything is building up to us. It is an idea that works for *us* but it isn't correct. Biological evolution has nothing to do with "advancement".
Whether this is applicable to culture depends on your point of view I guess.
If you re-read the sentence you quoted, you'll note that all I said was that for something like the NHS to be possible, a society must have evolved to a certain extent, in order to possess the factors necessary for its coming into existence.
That's complexity.
Simply because a system requires a great deal of advancement to be in place to work doesn't make it advanced itself. If anything, it makes it less advanced than a system of equal worth that requires less work to already be in place to function.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/17 03:01:41
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Perhaps 'evolved' was a slightly confusing term to sue here. I intend to make no analogies to biological evolution or darwinism whasoever. I was using it in the sense of the word meaning, changing over time into something superior.
As to whether you view american culture now to superior to say, the aztecs, is indeed subjective. However, as I said before, when you start in on the whole, 'everything is subjective department', you open up a massive can of worms philosophers have been struggling with some time now. Whilst you could say american culture is no better or worse than the aztecs,as it's all subjective, you then have to apply the same principle to the matter of morals. I can believe that american culture is superior to that of the aztecs without even mentioning technology, simply by saying that amercian culture is morally superior, as it doesn't carve out people's hearts on temples as a matter of day to day course.
Of course, it's possible to say that they're just different, and one cannot be inferior or superior, but stop and think for a minute. By that self same reason, the holocaust, or any other act of ethnic cleansing or genocide is equal to something like the global healthcare. One cannot be right or wrong, they're just different ideas. Yet we all abhor genocide, and think that global healthcare is a nice idea. (well, maybe not the latter, but you get the point). It's possible to say that that's simply a case of social conditioning, but if that's the case, and morals are entirely subjective, you'll have no objection when I sacrifice your family to Quetzcoatl.
I believe that national healthcare, as it is something that betters all of mankind, can make a society more 'advanced' or 'better'. This is because I personally believe that whilst some morals are adjustable depending on culture, some certain things, like genocide, can never be right regardless of what context you place them in. Therefore if there are certain morals that are NOT adjustable, then by using those morals, you can judge as to whether something is 'better' or 'worse', and it ceases to be subjective to a large extent, and becomes more objective.
Ketara wrote:Who mentioned complexity?
If you re-read the sentence you quoted, you'll note that all I said was that for something like the NHS to be possible, a society must have evolved to a certain extent, in order to possess the factors necessary for its coming into existence.
While I enjoy living in that sort of society, from a philosophical point of view I question what you mean by "evolved". How are we *more* evolved than say, medieval Europe. Evolved yes, but what does *more* mean. More what? Technology? Less Religion? Longer Lifespans? More Religion?
I am reluctant to draw analogies with biological evolution, but it is kind of like the idea of the "ladder" of evolution, that is, the idea that everything is building up to us. It is an idea that works for *us* but it isn't correct. Biological evolution has nothing to do with "advancement".
Whether this is applicable to culture depends on your point of view I guess.
Once a culture invents writing it becomes possible for information to be recorded and distributed far more easily than by relying on human memory. This allows a literate culture to evolve new ideas, while still retaining its old ones for comparison.
For instance, a modern archaeologist can buy a chainsaw, or he can forge an axe, make himself a flint hand axe using techniques which have been derived from study of ancient tools.
This ability also extends to ethical issues, law, a understanding of the universe through science. It also becomes possible to borrow ideas and whole areas of knowledge from foreign cultures. Cross-fertilization of ideas helps the generation of new concepts.
sebster wrote:It scores poorly on metrics because it is a profit driven system. There's no motivation for investing in preventative medicine (as people will probably change jobs and be working with some other company by the time it becomes a problem). And there are tens of millions of people who aren't insured, and liable to die from preventable illness.
You're comparing the end result with the treatment. The US has very good treatment. Has very poor overall health in the US.
The US still treats healthcare as a business enterprise. It should be treated like a utility. Sure, we don't need electricity to our homes, but it's now virtually a basic neccessity for modern life. And I feel that gasoline should also be treated like a utility, not a business model. That means more regulation and oversight. That doesn't mean there can't be some competition (just like I can choose my internet service or even my natural gas provider).
In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer
dietrich wrote:You're comparing the end result with the treatment. The US has very good treatment. Has very poor overall health in the US.
No, the US doesn't have very good treatment. Despite spending vastly more than anyone else, you have a middling to poor system. The US does have a very high skill base, and it has access to a very high level of high end medical equipment, yet at the end of the system is so badly set up that you don't do half . And it isn't just things like life expectancy (where diet and lifestyle pay a major part), it's things like infant mortality and instances of curable diseases being untreated.
The US still treats healthcare as a business enterprise. It should be treated like a utility. Sure, we don't need electricity to our homes, but it's now virtually a basic neccessity for modern life. And I feel that gasoline should also be treated like a utility, not a business model. That means more regulation and oversight. That doesn't mean there can't be some competition (just like I can choose my internet service or even my natural gas provider).
The US has a very odd model that evolved over a long period of time, and really needs an overhaul from the ground up. Right now the system has none of the benefits of a competitive market and all the failings of a profit driven model. The shame is that it isn't that hard or unthinkable to build a better model, by structuring a system around member driven, not for profit private insurers that are chosen directly by members, you have all the benefits of a competitive market (range of choices, competitive pricing) and all the benefits of a not-for-profit model (insurer focus is delivery to members, not non-payment to increase private profit).
And yeah, proper, open and meaningful regulation of the insurers would go a long way. Not to mention accountability to members by having them select their own insurer.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
WOW, just WOW. for some reason I'm doubting that this kind of thing happens very often. And coming from the conservatives for patients right it is obviously unbiased.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Envy89 wrote:But if America gets "Free" health care.... where will the people of other countries come if they want good heath care???
What about the pregnant peoples from Canada who are denied care in Canada and come to USA for care insted?? Won’t somebody please think of the children?!?!
If we had socialized medicine the check for care could be as easy as presenting a passport, or some form of national ID, like a social security number.
Envy89 wrote:
honestly people, what about our government makes you think they can run the health care indursty well? is it the 50$ the army spends for a hammer? Or is it the $1,000,000,000 + (thats billion) a DAY that lord obama has spent since he was elected?
What about the current system makes you think the private sector can manage the same responsibility? And how does spending money invalidate the state's ability to run a health care system?
Envy89 wrote:
Stop rewarding people for being lazy and fix the friggin system we have...
We can't, its privatized. Fixing the health industry would involve more regulation; making it intrinsically less private, or socialized.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The health care industry has to be one of the most corrupt industries. From the drug companies to the doctors. It's driven by obscene profits and that's unfortunate considering you are playing with people's health. Friend of mine is a drug rep and is pretty much told to do whatever it takes to have a Dr. write his Rx. Payouts are common things and done slyly. The whole thing is a huge mess and having the government step in a bit is not a bad idea. Figuring out how much is the real question.
