that there should be two things society offers to the humans within it:
1) Protection in old age independent of material resources.
If you have known someone die young, you'll know that getting there...to old age...is an achievement.
If those rich people have lots of money, then design a system that encourages them to give it up and out...
Taking it away from the dead, for example. (Hand everything over to your kids when you hit sixty! What? You don't trust them? Well you f***ed up! The state will take it all. Don't have kids? Invest in local businesses...hand it out! Society will protect the old! )
There is the first mantra: Our society will protect the old.
Second:
"If you are sick you will get the best care possible. Money will not be an issue."
You smoke? You get the same treatment.
You're overweight? You get the same treatment.
You're rich? You get the same treatment.
You're poor? You get the same treatment.
Society will look after the sick.
Making fallible (oh so!) humans responsible for looking after a concept as abstract as money...through the years...because otherwise...no care in old age! No care when you're sick!
I think that is wrongheaded, because it says:
Society doesn't care about you. It only cares about your money.
Well, that's not quite my point. I think...well...if you're interested, there could be a good debate about how individuals with money can spread it wisely...questions about that word: "wisely"...
But I never doubt your good heart, wchurchill.
What I doubt is your sense of...how the world is constructed. And mine too!
Just one example:
At Mirror newspapers in England, a load of people got shafted over their pensions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2001/04/01/cnimro01.xml
..as an example. The workers did the best by what they were told...and got shafted...by some rich git.
I think, yes, people need to consider more, but not...money.
But we come from different areas in this regard. But seriously, I think a good discussion could be had.
And I will soon have some music that might...well...financing...
heh heh...
Money is a means....and if I can get the ends without money...all the better!
That's my--sort of--take. Good to read your reply! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
1) Protection in old age independent of material resources,,,,,,,If you are sick you will get the best care possible. Money will not be an issue." You smoke? You get the same treatment. You're overweight? You get the same treatment.
I would easily agree that there is a certain level of care that everyone in old age should have. But is there no reward for those that have managed their lives better than Mickey?
As you suggest in your comments, money is far from everything in our world.
I think...those who have managed their lives well have...their lives as their reward...
...maybe there's something here (not sure...): the idea of a reward in the future for...hmmm...you know, planting the best seeds so the next crop will be bigger vs. eating the best seeds so the next crop will be weaker...
And yes, I suppose scarcity leads to decision making...but the richest countries in the world...well...hmmm...I suppose I think sickness and infirmity should not be punished, no matter what the causes. (The victorians had the idea of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor...I think society got...healthier...when, after WWII a socialist govt. banished this...meme...and replaced it with...what was it? The four evils...ah, I have googled and the evils were five.
The Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services was published in 1942. It proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. Beveridge argued that this system would provide a minimum standard of living "below which no one should be allowed to fall".
Recommended that the government should find ways of fighting the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. This led to the setting up of the modern Welfare State (the culmination of the Fabians' project) with a National Health Service (NHS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge
(Don't worry about the delay replying...I'm off and on the computer at all kinds of strange hours at the moment...) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Another reason for rationing is cost. If artificial hearts continue to come along and become practical (outside my depth again, but I've read of some initial clinical trials), I doubt if as the baby boomers age in the US, and same phenom in EU, that either system will be able to afford to give a heart to everyone that needs one. This will certainly be true in the early days after approval as costs are bound to be high--overtime maybe they'll come down. so how does one handle that one? some approaches would be; o everybody or nobody o a lottery o rationed based upon age and maybe other overall health determinants--ie don't give it to someone with terminal cancer that has 3 months left anyway. or ration based on "qualies", a system developed primarily in the UK o have various levels of health insurance, so that some could choose to buy more expensive health insurance that would cover more and more expensive technologies. o I think in the above case, you would find charities forming to help families in particularly difficult situations.
the higher price for insurance policies doesn't have a great feel to it, in the benefit the rich sense. But it would also allow many people to make choices with how they spend their money--keep that car for 10 years instead of 5, and buy a higher level of health insurance, etc., etc. But the French healthcare system seems to have this concept, where higher levels of insurance are paid for. In the US it could have the advantage of getting everyone insured at a basic level, and maybe that level could be pretty high.
