Printable View
You spin words well, but they are still spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Does a plumber who comes to your house after your basement floods profiting from your misery? Does the tow-truck driver that fixes your flat at 2:00 am in the rain profiting from your misery?
There is no more or no less profiting going on in our private health care system as in your public health care system. Everyone, in both systems, takes a slice.
Yes, that's a good point. I'll think about that one . . . . :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
ONE DAY! I GO AWAY FOR ONE BLOOMIN' DAY AND THIS THREAD GOES WILD! Yeeeeeshhhh!
Do you get more if you are richer? In general, yes. I can't account for MB's experience, but then again, I had a doctor offer me free orthopedic help when he picked me up hitch-hiking, so good things do happen.
I know plenty of people who determine how they handle their health in part by the prohibitive cost of health care if you lack insurance. This goes as far as people I know doing minor surgery and suturing on themselves or family members (the anesthetic you can easily guess, though it goes by many names) because the cost of a hospital visit was too high.
You do get a bill from most places, and they are not always written off as a loss by the hospital.
So my question is: Could we do better? I laid out where the money would come from, and it seems adequate. Could we do better, and how?
yrwyddfa
First let me just say that money does play an important role in the NHS and there is a cost/benefit trade off made, so it is not true to say that it puts people first whatever the cost. The NHS has a certain budget to play with and it rations it's resources to cater for those who need it's services.
However, even if one accepts that health care should be funded by the tax system (rather than by private individuals), it does not follow that it should be provided by the government.
I would like to see the NHS wound up and replaced entirely by privately run hospitals. That doesn't mean that health care could not still be fully (or partially) funded by the tax payer.
How ever much we cling to the principle of free care at the point of need, we should not be so quick to assume that the government must also administer the health care (because it is obviously a shambles).
Yes I agree - the government does not have to administer the health system.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Simon Like I inferred here.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
When you go to see a doctor usually there is something reasonably seriously wrong with you. When you need a mechanic, or a plumber it's a matter of convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I wouldn't call the two the same - as getting medical treatment should never become a matter of convenience.
What about food and shelter? Shouldn't they be "free at the point of need"?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The USSR already proved, through decades of "everyone" is equal that corruption overwhelms that type of system.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I prefer a socieity being driven by ability to gain status by working harder over one that is handed out a portion regardless of participation.
There will always be welfare and charity cases - they are unavoidable - but they should be a small percentage of the population and supported by the welfare state.
Sorry, but everyone should have health care, otherwise it wouldn't be very caring.
Sweden has 100% of it's population covered, the US - 30%. That is shocking, it's no wonder the US population is seen as obese and generally unhealthy. Health care access is bad enough but for only a quarter of the population to have access to a GP and less than 5% to have access to drugs (antibioitics etc..) :eek2:
On the face of it, yes, it appears shocking.
But I'm sure our American friends will argue that only people who cannot afford to pay are subsequently listed on these statistics. Everyone else covers themselves through private insurance.
It is, after all, not a measure of how many people have access to healthcare.
Still, it should be something the government is responsible for. I for one like the idea of the NHS. What I don't like is how it is run. All that should be needed for healthcare is to prove you are British (or been living here for a length of time, perhaps 5 years?) otherwise health care has to be paid for by insurance or some other means.
It's a great idea but one that is unlikely ever to be fair and equitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Salaries, as most working people on this forum will know, are not a function of hardwork.
Those who work long factory hours earn a great deal less than me. I would go to say that they work a lot harder than I do, too.
You see, under your system, I have a good salary and good standing in society because of the way I was born. I was born having an intellectual capacity on balance greater than a significant proportion of the population. This is, however you might dislike the idea, probably true for nearly every member of this forum. The set of programmers, as a rule, simply tend to be brighter than the average member of the population.
Under the capitalist system it is your business worth (ie how much many you can make, or save) that counts.
Success, therefore, must be a function of birthright (genetic factors go someway to predict the intellect levels of the children - as do the environmental factors of living with bright parents)
I know it's unpalatable but it's the truth. If you're rather lacking in the IQ area then you generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity.
I guess what your saying here - that the government is responsible for quality assurance of the healthcare system, and not the execution of it - is a reasonable idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Yes. The government shouldn't run the NHS (which they don't) but they should ensure that it is run professionally and to a very high standard....which is not the case at the moment
yrwyddfa
Obviously, one's birth right plays an important factor, how can it not? And what is so wrong with that? That is not a feature of the capitalist system, it is a fact of nature for all living things. The facilities you are born with determine to a large degree your capacity for success in life.Quote:
You see, under your system, I have a good salary and good standing in society because of the way I was born. I was born having an intellectual capacity on balance greater than a significant proportion of the population. This is, however you might dislike the idea, probably true for nearly every member of this forum. The set of programmers, as a rule, simply tend to be brighter than the average member of the population.
However, don't belittle individual effort. It is not merely enough to be exposed to opportunities. Successful people make their own opportunities when they don't already exist. They know when to seize an opportunity, rather than letting them float by untapped. Hard work and effort certainly play an important role in one's success too.
That's simply untrue. Progress will undoubtedly be more difficult, but still possible.Quote:
I know it's unpalatable but it's the truth. If you're rather lacking in the IQ area then you generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity.
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I wasn't. I said that some people 'generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity'Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Do they? I can think of only one group of people who fit into that description: entrepreneurs. What happens if you are not endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit?Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I think you'll find that most people seize their opportunities. But first you have recognise them as such. What skills do you need to recognise opportunity? Are you suggesting that the majority of people have the skills for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Perhaps. But by the very description some people will find the work hard, and have to put in an awful lot of effort to get the job done. Not very efficient, huh? What was that John Smith said about capitalism and efficiency . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
More difficult, if not impossible. Not to say it can't be done. I'm sure someone has some pathological case that 'proves' this is all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
yrwyddfa
Yes you were: "Success, therefore, must be a function of birthright"Quote:
I wasn't.Quote:
However, don't belittle individual effort.
Then stop thinking about people as groups and starting thinking about them as individuals.Quote:
I can think of only one group of people who fit into that description: entrepreneurs. What happens if you are not endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit?
It's not just entrepeneurs. It's about whether you sit back and wait for things to come to you, for things to fall into your lap, whether you believe the world owes you a living. Or do you go out and get them, make things happen, because you believe only you can make your life better?
It's not so much about being born entrepeneurial skills or spirit. It's about attitude and outlook. This is something one learns.
Do they? Or do many people cling to what they know, afraid of change, afraid of risk, of rocking the boat?Quote:
I think you'll find that most people seize their opportunities.
Yes, I believe the majority have the ability, to a greater or lesser degree to do this. Indeed, part of overcomming the obstacles in your path is recognising that your fate is in your own hands and that you can change your destiny. Merely believing that your birthright has dictated the path of your life is a defeatist attitude. It resigns one to doing nothing and sitting back. A large part of being successful is believing you can affect your own destiny.Quote:
But first you have recognise them as such. What skills do you need to recognise opportunity? Are you suggesting that the majority of people have the skills for this?
I cannot agree with this, albeit makes a modicum of sense.
If I were born with no arms I could not become a world-class javelin thrower. If I had no legs, I could never compete with Dwain Chambers on the 100m dash. If I have no fingers then I would find the job as a computer programmer particularly difficult.
I believe that the intellectual capacity is of the same order as other physcial attributes.
Opportunity, and success are limited, by ones own attributes. No amount of 'positive mental attitude' can change that. Take cycling. I can never compete in the Tour de France, although I can still ride a bike. My muscular structure, by fluke of genetics, will never be made for cycling. My mysocin filaments are too short and fat. This means I can run fast, but have no endurance.
I cannot think my way out of this. I cannot change my attitude so that the way I'm made effectively changes my biological make-up.
I think that it's unfair to suggest that anyone can achieve whatever they want to if they could only work harder, or think more positively. Perhaps they could achieve more, but their success would always be limited by what consitutes themselves as an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Yes, its called training.
yrwyddfa
I didn't say that people could achieve anything, despite whatever physical or intellectual limitations they might have. I am objecting to your claim that our success is a mere function of these physical and intellectual limitations that we are born with.Quote:
I think that it's unfair to suggest that anyone can achieve whatever they want to if they could only work harder, or think more positively. Perhaps they could achieve more, but their success would always be limited by what consitutes themselves as an individual.
I just feel you are overplaying the birthright contribution to success and underplaying individual flair, attitude and effort. Having a positive belief in yourself and your ability to affect your own destiny is possibly the key factor to succeeding in life.
If you accept that any success you might achieve is limited by physchological, or physiological characteristics an individual might have, then surely you also accept that, at the very least, success must be a partial function of these factors since that is what limits the maximum success?
A positive attitude will, of course, help to achieve the most an individual can achieve.
(Of course, success is clearly subjective, and I don't think that it is annealable to any form of metric or measurement ;) )
How can I train to throw a javelin if I have no arms?Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
Training is the aquisition of new skills or general improvement of existing skills. However training is limited by the individual's ability to learn, as yrywddfa points out
I have, on purpose, left out the concept of education, primarily because the jury's out on this one.
There have been cases where IQ has increased because of intellectual stimulus even in adults.
The most recent one is the guy who's on death row and who's been talking to his lawyers. He was not allowed to be executed because his IQ was under a certain threshold. Since his chats with his lawyers his IQ has apparently increased above the threshold so now he can be executed.
There is no scientifc consenus for the validity of IQ; in fact there are a lot people who deem it to be an invalid metric.
So, for now, intellectual capacity will have to do. Where I say intellectual capacity I mean the highest level of intellectualism an individual can achieve.
It is, therefore, not subject ot education.
(and before anyone digs up previous posts, I know I've used the term IQ somewhat loosely on this thread)
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I wonder if the lawyer was being paid by the convict's wife (or should I now say widow?)
Can I therefore conclude this thread . . .
If you're bright enough, but nevertheless wealthy enough, you will get the best health care treatment in the world.
Otherwise, you will be subject to whatever it is that your government provides.
?
Would agree on that assessment (although it doesn't relate to your intelligence, only your relative wealth) :thumb:
I'll call it resolved, then.