Reply to mild_mannered_super_hero
Hello MMSH.
Thank you for inviting me to comment on health systems and the people who run them.
I am not sure if you are aware that the NHS system in the UK is not āfree healthcareā as implied in your post, It is funded by a āNational Insurance scheme which all working people contribute to during their working lives. The concept of being āfreeā comes at the point of delivery, which is a bit of a misnomer because it has already been paid for.
It seems to me that there is a slight difference between the UK system and that in the US, inasmuch as the Insurance aspect here is run by the government (and is supposedly not for profit) rather than private companies who undoubtedly make plenty of profit.
In the UK we also have private insurance companies who donāt have waiting lists for medical care. But, needless to say, these are profit-making organisations and not everyone can afford to pay their fees.
It needs to be pointed out that, in the past, the NHS seems to have been quite competent until the āconservativeā party has the majority in government. Then there seems to arise a multitude of devious strategies for undermining the NHS system and trying to persuade people that they would be better served by private insurance.
Personally, I feel that the people who run the NHS are doing a sterling job considering that they are presently being undermined by our present government at almost every turn.
However, when it comes to ātrustā I find it very difficult to ātrustā a government that has people running it who appear to have personal profit as their main objective and the ordinary āpeoplesā needs rarely, if ever, on their agendas.
It has been quite evident from the accounts of botched surgeries reported on this site, that the āprivate system has no better claim to be ātrustedā than the alternatives.
You make the comment about ānot for profitā and āfree healthcareā as if these things are some kind of failed experiment. Whereas, ānot for profitā organisations have been very successful both in the UK and the US for many years and are no longer considered an āexperimentā. Indeed, there have been many extremely rich philanthropists around the world, who have used their wealth in a ānon-profitā sense, to benefit the whole of humanity , rather than just themselves.
Just to make my own position clear with regard to the comparisons between socialism /communism and capitalism. I have witnessed both good and bad in both types of administration, which leaves me mistrusting them for not controlling the greedy and selfish few who wish to benefit at the expense of the majority, without giving anything (or not much) back.
As an aside, I am also not religious (for much the same reasons as above). However, I can see how the man they called āJesus Christā attracted such a huge following.
If one examines his life and his teachings, I believe that we would find that he was advocating a kind, ācaringā, ānon-profitā system, where people cared for each other as much as they cared for themselves.
Itās such a pity to see these teachings being ācommercialisedā so that the āchurchesā can grow rich in much the same way that any other business might go.
It was clear that Jesus was, in essence, preaching about āsocialā values, kindness, caring and sharing, and nowhere have I found that his teachings indicate that he approved of personal greed for either wealth, power or dominance over others.
Needless to say, I could waffle on about this sort of thing for the rest of my life, but it
is unlikely to make much of a difference to those who support one system as opposed to another.
Amongst my own perspectives, I have long-since encompassed the pessimistic view that the āhuman raceā as a whole, cannot be ātrustedā as their moral compass seems to guide them towards a god of greed.
Best wishes
Bill
HUMAN NATURE.
Human nature is to kill.
āTwas always so and is so still.
Human nature wonāt admit
theyāve got themselves a rare habit.
No other creatures have been found
to compare with their redound.
Human nature when set free
will go about a killing spree.
Human nature will destroy
anything that might annoy.
So every other living thing
can be killed at human whim.
Human natureās selfish, cruel
things are viewed as their own fuel.
They break and take not for a need
more for selfish, human greed.
Human nature wants its way
it matters not who they may slay.
They cannot live in harmony
they want their own hegemony.
Human nature, unlike its mother
shows no respect for any other.
It intimidates and dominates,
appropriates and subjugates.
We may think that itās a shame
human nature lays the blame
on anyone or anything
so on itself the blame wonāt cling.
Human nature needs restraint
firm control and true constraint.
Left to itself it will devour
everything within its power.
Natureās power so dangerous
control must be continuous.
Power should not lie with those
from whom the will to kill arose.
B. Withers (2009)
(in āContemplationā 2010 p74