From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2005 - 09:25:38 GMT
It seems that a key topic being discussed here in this thread , is private
vs. public systems.
I often find it difficult to believe, that there is opposition to the
formation of public healthcare systems in many countries. Having
experienced my entire life with the public healthcare system in place, I
have come to understand many things about it.
There have been times where I have been admitted to hospitals, had fairly
extensive testing done (C.A.T. scans, X-rays, blood-tests, etc. , etc.) and
extensive counselling with various doctors, nurses, and specialists. All
of this, has been done at no expense to myself, other than the taxes I pay,
and that combined with every other tax-paying citizen.
Although I could be classified as living in "upper-middle-class" standards,
having to pay for the services performed for my health and general
well-being, I would be at a much greater disadvantage now, financially
speaking, as well as medically.
The idea of neglecting to care for the critically injured/ill on the basis
of financial reasons, seems to me, to be heavily apathetic, and inhumane.
Basically, the private system supports the health-and well being of those
who are financially secure (at least to some degree).
I find it astonishing, that the value of lives (one affects many) are based
on the ability to procure payment. To those who are already under financial
strain, which is quite a large percentage of any given country (Canada, U.S,
England, etc.) , the privatized system is a further burden.
Quite simply, a profit-driven healthcare system is a proponent of
degeneration and static patterns.
(it=privatized government "departments")
1: It benefits the priviledged few, rather than the many
2: It perpetuates the class barriers
3: It propagates the financial well-being of those already financially
secure
4: It places a higher emphasis on material , as opposed to moral value
itself
5: It is immoral (Human life is at a higher-state of evolution than
materials)
Another more conclusive example of my intended meaning follows;
2 women are in critical condition, in dire need of medical attention.
One woman has medical insurance to cover the expenses.
One woman could not afford medical insurance.
Which woman deserves to live? Perhaps neither deserves life any more than
the other?
In a privatized system, 1 will live, and 1 will die, regardless of any
merits either may have.
In a public system, both will recieve the attention they need, and live on
to lead a more valued life.
Who would you chose? the woman on the left, or the woman on the right?
Well, I suppose we could let the "free"-market decide.
POOT
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 16 2005 - 09:30:22 GMT