h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"The U.S. system is definitely a mess, but most people receive insurance as part of their employment benefits."

Are you sure that *most* people do? When I lived in the U.S., I knew a very large number of people whose employment benefits contributed nothing towards medical care.

If most people are covered by their employers, why the great aversion to taxation? The principle is there that the well off contribute to the less well off.

Why is the health system different from the policing system? Police are paid for by taxation, on the understanding that all citizens will be protected from crime, not just the richest ones. Why should healthcare be any less important?

I am lucky enough to have insurance paid for by my employer. At my age, I would be afraid not to have it. This also means I would have to think long and hard before I quit/retire- just because of the loss of insurance. And it limits my consideration of other jobs to those offering comparable coverage.

Interesting analogy to funding police protection. I expect I'll steal that during my next discussion with a friend who opposes socialized medicine.

Because then you've got to define where the government's right to meddle with personal liberty in the name of the greater good ends. For example, if there were no socialized health care, nobody would be whining, "Smoking costs us billions of dollars every year" and trying to make people stop smoking. Aren't drugs illegal for similar reasons? And isn't that intruding on personal liberties? If I want to get high, even knowing the risks, what's it your business? It is only if you're paying for me to be on life support when my brain vegetates.

Sure government is there to protect the people, but not necessarily from *themselves*. Just from others. At least, that's as far as I've gotten in History I this semester the Enlightenment and the French Revolution - men should only be restricted from doing what harms others.

I'll let you know when I hit socialism.

I consider this journal hijacked... Sorry tartaronne, I'll be back for the next one

'Because then you've got to define where the government's right to meddle with personal liberty in the name of the greater good ends. For example, if there were no socialized health care, nobody would be whining, "Smoking costs us billions of dollars every year" and trying to make people stop smoking.'

Is that an intrusion on civil liberties, or people voicing opinions (as they should do in a participatory political system)?

So personal liberty has become redefined as the freedom to enjoy ill health while not having to endure others whining about the same? I'm all for meddling, personally. I can't see why a government shouldn't meddle in matters of health, much as in the case of education or crime. The first duty of a government is protect its people, and if this extends to enlightened meddling through devloping and applying health policy, let's have more of it.

Ooh. Tartaronne.

But one last post...

"smoking costs us billions" isn't an opinion. It's a statement of fact.

Isn't the government supposed to protect its people's freedom? And shouldn't people be free to do whatever harms nobody else?

If you educate people and they still choose to pursue detrimental activities that harms nobody else, can't we assume that they've made their choice, and let 'em have it?

If not the government would have to embark on a serious campaign to protect people from themselves. I'd start by closing McDonalds and making it a law that everyone should exercise for fifteen minutes daily.

'"smoking costs us billions" isn't an opinion. It's a statement of fact.'

Well, you said it was 'whining'. Opinions can be statements of fact too.

"If you educate people and they still choose to pursue detrimental activities that harms nobody else, can't we assume that they've made their choice, and let 'em have it?"

Illness isn't always a lifestyle choice.

Hi Milla

Oh, I don't mind the hijacking at all. It is a very interesting discussion and I have fierce opinions about it- but right now no time to state them all properly.

Hi Felonious and Bomba - wellcome to the discussion.

I'm a socialist - used to be a member of the Communist Party in Denmark - because of the theories about how to regard humans as equals no matter whom your parents are, how much money you possess, how good an education you have, which gender, age and religion and because of the thoughts about cooperative society (give what you can and have what you need - which in theory should enable everybody to pursue their dream of quality in life without harming or oppressing anybody) opposed to an egotistic society where some people are more equal and free than other people.

When I was young I built my trust in socialism on the writings of Antonio Gramci. (I must re-read).

I'm well aware that what I regard as communist theories have never been practised in any country - yet. I've visited so-called communists countries in Central Europe several times from the end of the 60es to the end of the 80es. Last visit - besides Estonia - was in Romania a year after the fall of Ceaucescu. I was reporting from institutions for mentally handicapped children - and it was not a pretty sight and not a decent human outlook. Actually I had nightmares more than half a year after about how humans treat humans - like I had when I read Amnesty International's reports about torture in South Africa during apartheid (also the torture of Nelson Mandela).

We rich, white people of the Western world who have built our riches and supposedly surperior culture on stealing from other people/nations (especially Africa), enslaving, destroying other cultures, exploiting other people and now suppressing same with our capitalism (we will not pay (a little of that) back in free HIV medicine, because the Med Industry should have freedom to make profits, and neither will we pay back in genetically altered plants which could be a help for nations to help themselves, because companies have a patent and demand payment - even when the seed of the genetically altered plant are tranported through the air).

Even now we close our eyes to the facts of our exploitation: We happily buy bargains of clothes produced by small children working under very dangerous conditions. We want to recruit the brains of the Third World countries to have even more growth in our world. Do we really need more?

Freedom is relative. Your personal freedom depends not on a declaration or intent but on whom your parents are, where your live, how much money, how good an education, which handicap you're born with, gender, age, religion etc. How free is a 14-year old Somalian boy whose parents have died from AIDS and who has 4 siblings to support? Where is his freedom to have an education, to be innovative, to work, to choose how to dress or whatever, when he starts with nothing in a warzone and has to provide shelter and food for five?

I'm hijacking my own journal And I should w*rk.

All very good arguments; all very difficult to refute.

As for the arguments about socialised health.....
If any of them were being voiced in earnest in a country which has such a system - such as the UK - and had become a popular bandwagon, then I would be tempted to pay them some heed. However, they tend to be voiced most often in countries which have *never* had a socialised health service, mainly in the context of portraying producer interests as consumer interests. So I don't tend to pay much heed to them.

It's plain to see that a socialised health system has advantages that vastly outweigh the disadvantages. People don't get made bankrupt and the overall cost to the economy is much lower. And even people who suffer as a result of drinking and smoking, like my dad did in his final days, deserve to get the best care they can when they need it.

In a socialised health system as the Danish/Scandinavian - even more socialised than the British, I believe - prevention of illness is a great part of the health system. I.e. vaccination, of course, motoric screening of kindergarden kids (as bad physical motoric abillity also has a negative effect on learning), regular health checks after a baby is born, in kindergardens and schools, free dentistry until 18 years, free health and need evaluations of 70 years olds and up - and free care and practical help in their homes if needed - monthly, weekly, daily by nurses or cleaning assistants. Support to sports clubs and youth clubs, compensation for paying for medicine for the cronically ill, advice and health campaigns etc., etc.

Quite: health provision is treated as a *service* rather than a means to sell as much expensive medical treatment as possible. So it becomes in the interest of the state to ensure that people remain as healthy as posisble for as long as possible because it obviates the need for expensive reactive treatment.

..and the citizens can enjoy a better quality of life and thus contribute to rather than wear on society - the former, anyone I know much prefer.

To Tartaronne post #50

To Leo post #39; Living in a country, Sweden(neighbour to Denmark) with an extensive social service sector all financed by tax, being a doctor is considered as an important job, attracting the very brightest students -so being accepted as a med. student in Sweden is not easy, not even for the brightest. The final selection process to the Universities med. programs are made by interveiws. Not only do you have to be bright you also have to be suited for the job to deal with life and death.
Being a doctor is where I live still regarded with respect. And it is very well paid. No doctor in this country can call him/herself poor.

And as somebody else said, everything under the sun is not about making money.
How ever could treating sick people be lucrative? That is distasteful and unethical!


Izzybelle

Twenty-five odd years ago, when I first applied to university in the UK, I would have waltzed into med. school, with 3 grade A's at A level in physics, chemistry and biology. Now, with an undergraduate degree and a PhD in chemistry to my name, I sincerely doubt whether, if I wanted to retrain as a medic, I would get into med. school given the selection procedure that exists nowadays, and this under a Labour (instead of Tory) Government. As the system has become more socialised, then people become attracted to it because they seek fulfilment, rather than filthy lucre.

Essentially, Americans who slag off socialised medicine don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about.

Briefly, the government that belongs to the country of your choice is the right government for that country. An over simplified statement but essentially how things are.

But when your country has a government that is twisted to buy votes and changes the nature of that country's government then that is not the government of that country.

The US was built on a non-altruistic style of government. But the political leaders know the weakness of the people and by telling the people, "We are providing these welfares because we know you can't do it on your own," they buy the peoples trust. But notice who is getting richer and who is getting poorer.

The politicians keep upping their wages. Why do they have the right to do this. The people who put them in should be the ones making those type of judgements. One of my biggest gripes is the fact that people in various governmental jobs can retire after a certain amout of time and collect a huge retirement pay. Then they can get reinstated to those jobs and collect a huge retirement pay plus a starting salary comensorate with the pay they had previously. I can't do that well on Social Security.

How is that right?

Hi Mofolo, welcome - you are a rare guest.

I know much too little about USian politics - only of some of the effects it has on society and of certain subjects people here/on h2g2 has told about. To an outsider it seems that the degree of personal freedom and opportunity in life is closely connected to how much money you have, and that this increases the gap between the rich and the poor, between the educated and not educated, between the powerful and the not powerful. A society of un-equals, and it seems to provide an unstable society and breed a lot of violence and economical crime. Also an egotistic approach - *I* want to pursue the 'American dream' - getting rich, powerful, important - and no matter how much somebody says that 'my freedom stops at your nose, or as long as it don't harm others' - what a single person does *do* have an impact and influence on other people's lives and opportunities.

If my son doesn't clean his room because he wants freedom to do whar he likes in his own space, bugs will thrive and maybe spread over his threshold. If he doesn't do the dishwashing, somebody else must use their 'rightfully spare time' to do it ang get their freedom limited.

It seems that certain people think they are worth more than other people - and thus has the right to give themselves higher wages, more power, more influence. It seems that big corporations sometimes decide politics.

On the radio I heard this story about Disney. One of the chiefs were really bad at his job, cost the company a great loss, cost a lot of workers to become unemplyed, too. He got a golden handshake of millions of dollars, while the workers for Disney in East Asia, working harder and more hours than him got their meagre wages scaled even further down.

I'm getting far away from your situation, Mofolo. But I think it is the point of departure, how you look at humans, that is essential. We've seen life change radically to the for the mentally handicapped citizens (and the society as such) because of a different point of departure - looking at the humanity and possibillities instead of regarding as medical and social problems.

And now I have to drive my son to soccer.

see you

leo: "you've got to define where the government's right to meddle with personal liberty in the name of the greater good ends"

not necessarily. our health care does not discriminate smokers or drug abusers or survivors of motorcycle accidents even if they didn't use helmets like the law tells them to. if you get sick your sickness will be treated. end of story.

(if a smoker is in coma she/he will be provided with nicotine patches, because witdhdrawal symptoms might be the last straw that sends him/her over the edge)

if someone doesn't use a seatbelt or helmet and the government takes care of that person then it is the Government's problem (and mine if it is my government). If the government wants to take care of its citizens then it has to take the bad with the good. and if insurance is involved the company can dictate the circumstances in which they will pay or not pay a claim. Didn't wear a helmet and the accident is your fault claim disallowed.

My country was once occupied by intelligent beings that knew what to do when a person became infirm and a burden on the community. We came along and civilized the country and now no matter what the pain, no matter that you may never wake up as a functional being the government says we must keep that person alive and drive the family into poverty and when they destroy the family finance then they will take care of the person.

Unless you have been into one of our VA hospitals or low income rest homes you can't know the evil a person endures. I've been to both and it makes me positively sick the care the indigent receives. So who really is smarter - the savages that had the country before us or the civilized people who run our country now?