[Ant] The quality of healthcare could therefore be gradually improved in the UK by transferring funds away from shareholders' profits and into more worthwhile expenditure such as intensive care units and operating theatres.
[Arlo] As I had mentioned in another post, the US is paying more (both governmental and private) than any country with "socialized" health care. This begs the question, "why"? Why does the US government spend more per person on health care than the Canadian government, and yet our private citizens still pay 5x more out-of-pocket? And yet we still rank nearly last (only Denmark ranked lower) out of "Western" nations in the World Health Organization 2000 ranking. Moreover, consider this simple question. Is "society" better-off or worse-off when its poor die from lack of medical treatment? This is the simple social Darwinism espoused by the right. For them, "society" would be better-off if the poor died (or at the very least, unaffected). If letting the poor die makes society better, then it certainly is NOT within society's best interest to cover the health care costs of the poorest among us. (Although *I* think health care isn't just about what's best at the social level). But, if letting the poor die weakens society, then society certainly is moral in supporting the lives of the poor. So this seems to be the root question. When the poor die from lack of health care, is society better-off, or worse-off? Given his firm stance against capital punishment, I'd have to say Pirsig would likely say "worse-off", since again Dynamic evolution does not come from the "good guys". And that alone is moral justification for meeting the basic health care needs of the citizenry. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
