Almost Obligitory Healthcare Discussion Post

In the midst of all of the fallout over Obama's healthcare reform package I've been somewhat confused over the incredible backlash. Admittedly, I do not and have never lived in America and I also don't know all of the details, but as far as it seems to me this is a good move. Something like another 300 million people who were previously unable to will now gain healthcare. While I'm not sure about all of the arguments, from where I stand they appear to boil down to these 300 million people not being worth the same as everyone else. I may be mistaken, but the Declaration of Independence which America is built upon says point blank that all men are created equal. As far as I can figure out, this argument is backing down on that.
Where I have been most confused about this particular development is the backlash in Christian circles. When you look at the Early Christian church, they looked after one another. Example, Acts 4: 34-35 "There were no needy persons among then. From time to time those who owned lands or fields sold then, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need' The early church was built upon the same principle that is being generally hated among America - a country where 79% call themselves Christian and 58% say that religion plays an important role in their lives.

Additionally, there are an estimated 45,000 deaths every year that were linked to not having health insurance. 45,000, some quick maths lets me know that this is a number roughly 1 and a 1/2 times the population of my home town. So every 2 years, my home town is completely replaced 3 times. Now for a country that prides itself on being in the forefront of medical technology that is moderately un-good.

Some more numbers then. The US already spends a higher percentage of GDP and more money per capita on health care and yet, the world health organisation still places the US health system 37th in the world. The infant mortality rate is behind all of western Europe (which all has public or socialised health care). The Life expectancy is also a year shorter than the European figure. Additionally over the last 20 odd years, the US has fallen from 11th to 42nd on the list of life expectancy.
Final number then. The US is the only developed country that doesn't have universal health care.

The only almost legitimate argument that I can think of is the argument that says that this is a foot in the door for a socialist take over of the US. I don't know why, but the US seems to see itself as the last bastion against the evils of 'non-capitalism'. To achieve this end, anything that is remotely publicly funded must be hated, abandoned and destroyed. (A bit of a disclaimer, this is just the way that I read it, I could well be very wrong). The problem with this is two fold. Firstly, this is not the way it works. Australia (which does have universal health care) is as much capitalist as the US. Secondly, there are greater evils than socialism.



Just a note, the next post will be an April Fools thing - enjoy it.

Bemusement

It is an interesting sensation to be trusted or praised. As an example, one of my lecturers recently told me quite genuinely that he would be happy to give me a professional reference now if he thought it would help me get a job, less than a year into study. A long term reader of this will possibly know that I don't often consider myself deserving of this sort of thing and so I was quite bemused - especially since the subject that I had him for was the one that I rushed most at the end. When someone gives you something positive that is undeserved because they think you deserve it, something doesn't quite seem to gel in your mind. Nagging in the back is the thought that somehow this person is deluded "What if they find out? I'm basically just a fraud." comes to the front. Either that, or you get a sense of embarrassment related to modesty.

It's interesting that in a day and age when we are told that not only do we have to put ourselves out there for any kind of exterior improvement, but that we also deserve every positive thing that swings our way, many of us don't feel comfortable with this approach. It's even more interesting that there is a clinical term for this sort of thing - Narcissism - and it is considered a mental problem (albeit an untreatable one and therefore one that goes mostly ignored).
Which isn't to say that a good self esteem is a bad thing or that extroversion is a bad thing, just that people can get carried away in it.

Just something that made me curious last week.

Follow-up

Ok, I said that I would talk about people who want to know only about their chosen field and nothing else, so here it is. I'll get my initial thought out of the way now - this approach is stupid. There, I've said it. It limits and restricts you, it seeks to define you in a way that you shouldn't necessarily be defined, it ruins you and it can in some cases destroy esteem (not the best word, but the only one that I can think of). The best ideas come from people who for some reason have to change their field - they don't know what is possible yet. But people seek to know nothing about anything else. I'll discuss these issues first and then get to the other thing that irritates me later.
Before I begin, you don't have to know everything - just be well rounded in your knowledge.

Seeking to know only a specific area limits you: with the sum of human knowledge doubling every couple of years, it now seems that to be able to learn about everything is a futile effort, and on both hands it is. Let's consider though the three approaches that can be made to learning.
1) It is Futile and therefore I won't bother. I don't think that I need to point out the idiocy of this statement, and so I won't.
2) It is Futile and so I will learn about only one thing. As the sum of knowledge expands, so does the areas in which knowledge is acquired. As an example, 200 years ago, you were called a scientist and you knew about science. Now, you can't be called just a scientist, you must be a Physicist, or a Chemical Biologist or a MetaQuantum NanoTechnologist and all of these fields are continually narrowing. As you seek to know more about your subject, you have to keep narrowing your gaze to be able to keep up. You become blinded to anything else.
3) It is Futile and so I will seek to Specialise. While this may seem the same, there is a difference. A specialist is an expert in one area, but they must also understand the things around their area. It is no point being a Gastrologist if you don't want to know anything about the rest of the anatomy and so you learn about other things. While you might not want your gut surgeon operating on your brain or vice versa, you expect that they will both know something about their counterparts.

It seeks to Define you: This one is fairly simple. An expert is someone who knows everything in a certain field. And so they are defined by their field. I've discussed this before, you shouldn't be defined by what you do. Where their field goes is where they have to go.

It can destroy esteem: This can be a fairly extreme case, but I feel that it's worth mentioning. If expertise defines you, then what happens when you can't quite make expert? You fail. Which means that you aren't good enough any more. Yes, I said it was an extreme case, but still plausible.


The second reason that I don't like it is because despite people not knowing or caring to know about areas outside their ever shrinking interests, they will always have an opinion. And it will be wrong, almost inevitably, but people will never seek to be corrected and will want to correct those who actually know what their doing.
GAH, Idiots.
But anyway, this is just my opinion based on the observations of an occasional lunatic. If I'm wrong, sue me.

Beg, Borrow and don't Ask

This is a quick challenge.

If you frequently listen to illegally obtained music, whether downloaded through torrents or given to you by a friend - If you don't either have the physical CD in your possession or you haven't downloaded your music from the bands website of the iTunes store or something like that, then this challenge applies to you.

What I want you to do is to pick your favourite album from the list of your music, walk into a music distribution place, find it on the shelf, take it and walk out without paying for it.

Have fun

It must be said that I don't actually condone this activity and it is for illustrative purposes only.

Somaticism

Two things disappoint me with the current generation of men as a whole. Some things disappoint me about certain groups of men, but as a whole, there are two things that irritate me.

1. As a group, we are 'somatically incapable' (explanation follows)
2. As a group, we don't desire any change from this.

While we pride ourselves on our knowledge on everything from carpentry to cars, we are often completely unaware of anything besides the buzzwords. Which is where the term (which I made up), Somatically Incapable, comes in.
Somatically Incapable means that while we may know things, we are unable to convert our knowledge to ability. So while we all know the difference between a V6 and a V8 and can probably argue at length about the pros and cons of both we may well not be able to change a tyre, and while we may know the difference between a dovetail joint and a tongue and groove joint (admittedly they are similar) we have no idea how to make them. Don't argue with me on the definition of the phrase, I made it up so I can tell you what it means.

As males we pride ourselves on going down to the shed on the weekend and doing something - or we used to. Now, I'm only 19, but I can still remember being excited after coming back from the garage having forged something from the earth (or gluing a few pieces of wood together to make bookends). The somatic component of our lives has run away with the onset of technology. You may have noticed the effect - tradesmen are becoming less respected and conversely, more needed. We need them to do nigh on everything that goes wrong. As soon as there is anything that needs repairs, we go straight to the yellow pages and then complain that they overcharged us. And yet, we will have a pile of tools rivalling that found in the entirety of the UK - most of which, we won't know how to use (because almost everyone can use a hammer or a screwdriver).

Now we come to the issue of the second problem - we don't want to change this. When you asked someone for help to do something last time, did you have any idea how to do it for the next time? or did you just assume that they will be able to do it again? Most people want to specialise in their chosen field, whether it be criminal law or plumbing, and don't want to know anything outside of that (which I think is a subject for later) in case they become a jack of all trades and a master of none. So the idea is that you know nothing about anything else. An expert is defined as someone who knows more and more about less and less and everyone's ideal is to become an expert. While we can never be pantomaths and its still hard to get to polymath status, we can know other things.

The term man around the house probably originated from the man's ability to be able to do things around the house. Why can't we return to that?

Money and the Proverbial Mouth

At the University of Texas in San Antonio, an Atheist Group on campus has decided to do something about their beliefs. Now before I go into details, I want to make it clear that firstly, I respect that they have made a move, but secondly, I don't respect the particular move that they have made. To clarify, I respect it when people can say what they actually think without beating around the bush or hiding it all in a bunch of rhetoric - which isn't to say that I always respect what they actually say or do, similar to I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

What they have done, is started an initiative in contrary motion to what religious groups on campus do. When bibles are handed out, they will find a prominent place, and trade bibles or other religious texts for porn. Given that I don't agree that porn should exist let alone be easy to find, you may find it surprising that I can respect this move. I don't - what I respect is that a move was made.

For too many people, the temptation is to stand back and just 'agree to disagree'. This is a stupid move - all that is decided is that I think you're wrong and you think that I'm wrong, which was already decided at the start. It was the reason that a disagreement arose in the first place. While I can understand the sentiment behind it (we don't want to alienate people from us or us from others) and I can see where it can be the right response in some cases (such as when discussing the merits of 1970's jazz vs 1930's blues), most of the time it is just a cop-out. If you can't prove your case over and above the other, then why did you make it?

Which is why I respect that the Atheist group on campus made this move. What they are saying is not, 'let's agree to disagree', they are saying "We are Right and you are Wrong", instead of capitulating they are taking a stand for what they believe. What is telling is that the Christian Group, as far as I've heard, hasn't made a reply or tried to get it changed or stopped they've merely said that they don't agree with it.

Pioneers

This is the age of people that pioneer. We push the boundaries, we have more opportunities, we have more growth in most facets of our lives.
Sorry, but I'm going to call a bluff on this one.
When was the latest 'new thought'. All our our thinking is based on things that were decided years ago. The belief that we actually exist, when was the last time that you questioned that one, was probably proved by Descartes in 1637 (cogito ergo sum) and it hasn't been seriously questioned since then. We don't actually question any of the fundamental things, only the nitpicky little things that probably fall under the topic of Dogma, and then we claim that we are high level thinkers.

I would say that the closest that we get is accepting new innovations. Even then, will we accept things that are developed by people our own age? How many mid-50 year olds do you know that regularly use computers for anything more than sending emails (if that). Bill Gates is currently 54.
All of our thoughts are just re-hashes of what has already been said; the alternative medicine movement? Chinese or tribal herbal medicines, been around roughly since herbs. New age stuff? Celtic or Scandinavian religion with some eastern occultism, been around since roughly Celts, Scandinavians and East Asians.
We can't do anything that hasn't already been done for us.
Look at art; the stuff that people say is the biggest shift is either monkeys throwing paint at a wall, or dead animals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a lot of people believe that cave paintings fulfil both of these criteria. And what performance art? Vaudeville acting often with a few less clothes on.
Look at music; modern pop music is just a rehash of last years pop music, which was a rehash of last years pop music, which was a rehash of last years pop music, and so it goes. Styles may change slightly with the addition of a new innovation, but then it's first tried on a rehash of 80's and 90's music and then it spreads to last years music. You only have to listen to a bit of modern metal to realise how much of it was almost written by either Pink Floyd or Metallica 30 or 40 years ago.
In technology, most of the thinking was done by people early last century - Science Fiction writers. We look at that now and think, "Yeah that could be feasible, and so we'll try it out" when the original thought came not so much from an idea of this would be cool, but from an idea of this should work if that can happen. Usually that happened roughly 10 years later and we didn't bother to do anything about it

Look at our moral compass (which as a generation is so screwed up it's given up pointing in any direction let alone north). Even that isn't new. We're just asking for it all to be legal now. Most of it was seen in Ancient Greece nigh on 2500 years ago.

As a generation, we've regressed. It's not so much that we aren't able to do new things, it's more that we don't want to. Without a few clinically insane people blurting out some completely new thing, there will be no paradigm shifts in our thinking because we don't want to have them.

The only new thought that we've had is that sitting on a small dark box that we call a room can give us the same social experience as going out and actually talking to people. And I'll call bluff on that one too.