- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Collative study, by Commonwealth Fund (a USA think-tank), of data from various sources including the WHO; OECD; UOHSP and government data. Analyses and then ranks healthcare systems of 11 developed countries.
Worth a read.
Yeah. It was gone for decades. The new variable is pouring over the border because of the left.
Mexico's vaccination policy is wildly successful. They haven't had a measles outbreak since 1996, in the entire country, because every child is required, by law, to be vaccinated against it before they can enter schools, and the vaccinations are free.
The PAHO just confirmed them as a measles-free country.
The outbreaks are happening in areas like LA and NY, because idiots keep not vaccinating their kids.
The same as the minerals needed to make nuclear reactors. I read in a journal a few weeks ago that if the entire world was powered by nuclear fission, we would run out of usable uranium in about 40 years: and we would have, on average, a serious nuclear disaster every month. Not to mention the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Likewise, nuclear fusion really isn't a feasible energy source for the same reasons: the minerals required to house the reactors are finite.
Electric cars are, admittedly, at very best a temporary solution, but they're still much less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels.
I think that biological (bacteria-driven) batteries are the future. There are bacteria that can turn light into heat and chemical energy, which can be used to drive steam turbines and create electricity. Bacteria that literally use sunlight to perform binary fission.
You put too much weight on economic status. The habits and ethic that parents instill in their children prepare them for success or failure. There is nothing a government concerned with Freedom can do about that kind of inequality.
I think you put too much trust in parents.
Here you underestimate the choices people make
The choices a parent makes ought not to result in the child bearing the bad decisions of the parents. That's what collectivism is, for me. A society that picks up the slack.
Family dynamics create this situation far more than economic class
And yet the poor stay poor.
Children raised by 2 parents who value education and hard work, no matter what their income, are far more likely to do better than children raised either by 1 parent or parents who fail to instill values related to success.
Parents can't be trusted to always make good choices for their kids. That's why we have social services.
Societies don’t have rights
Its the right of society to choose its form. That's what democracy means.
That might make you feel better about your shudderingly stupid society that elected that guy you hate
Not sure what you're referring to here. I live in Ireland.
I’m sure there are lots of financial benefits to having rich parents. But inheritance isn’t the main one. Inheritance comes later in life, after the parents die.
Don't be naïve. Children of wealthy, successful parents inherit from the moment they are born. They inherit opportunity; they inherit safety; they inherit comfort; they inherit security; they inherit ample food, clean water and clothing; they inherit economic stability; they inherit innumerable freedoms and privileges that impoverished children don't. The hierarchy of needs places many of these as the most fundamental requirements for a human to thrive. How many of these does a child in the slums inherit?
How many of these is a child of a child of the slums likely to inherit?
Let's be real: no matter what decisions you THINK a highly impoverished person should make, the fulfilment of basic needs will always come first, and to that end, the time taken to fulfil them almost always makes social mobility next to impossible. When all your time is spend trying to make enough money to eat, have water, have shelter, and have clothing, there isn't much time or opportunity left for much else.
That's not a choice on the parents part, anymore than it is a "choice" to have to eat, drink, be sheltered, and sleep.
70% of families lose their wealth by the second generation. When kids are successful, it is more likely because the parents instilled good values and provided the kids with a good education (parents are way more important in this than the public schools, but like you, people are always looking for public solutions to private dilemmas)
Impoverishment without chance of reprieve is a public dilemma.
A lack of inheritance is no hindrance to success in life. You don’t get an inheritance until after you are successful or not
Again, a child of a wealthy or even "stable" family inherits from the moment he or she is born.
Tuition is bloated because of the government loan system. It’s a bubble. If it doesn’t deflate it will burst
Lol are you serious? In the UK, when my uncle was doing his degree, education was socialised and entirely subsidised by the state. Then they started allowing private investment and private ownership of state universities. Around the same time, they build a student loans system (with high interest), and the universities began charging fees. When the loans limits were increased, the fees increased to exactly match the maximum loans limit. Not the government loses millions every year on unpaid loans while private interests syphon profits and many universities are let barely paying the bills.
It was much better the way it was before.
The most unfair thing about student loans is you can never bankrupt your way out of them. The interest scheme is shit, but they are guaranteed loans to everyone regardless of risk. That ends up seeming pretty unfair, but so did all the foreclosures on all the homeowners who only got a loan because the government thought loans for bad risks was more fair
This is a bit twisted. The unchecked desire for profit for an elite few in both these instances is what caused the issues that we see now. Regulations were torn down, bad decisions were made, but are poor people to blame for that?
The government loosed the regulations on mortgages not because of "fairness", but because big institutions lobbied them to do it. And what happened? Bankers walked away with billions in bonuses, foreclosures ensued, the lenders gobbled up all that property, and the society ended up bailing them out with tax money.
That's predatory capitalism's ace in the hole.
This is another example of a public solution to a private dilemma
If society demands by law that a child attend school, the child should be looked after psychologically and physically while at school.
A social psychiatrist cannot replace parents
It's not about replacing them. It's about giving kids the support they need when they're at school 8 hours a day and have parents who work all the hours God sends so they can afford to put meat and potatoes on the table.
they are, at best, a band-aid
Hardly. Most social psychiatrists know more about child psychology and healthy development than most parents will ever know. They'll certainly help with the gun problem and mental health problems in a lot of schools.
They may save someone from suicide or mediate some conflicts, but they will not enable success
They certainly won't hinder it either.
They cannot instill the necessary values the way parents can
Not all parents are mentally, emotionally or physically able to instils such values. What happens to the kids who fall through the cracks?
Also, why do you think there is more violence in the lower socioeconomic strata than in the upper?
It's a known trend that poverty increases negative emotion. Having little opportunity to express, be validated, be supported, and to come to terms with those emotions is always going to lead to problems. There are a huge, innumerable number of things about living in poverty that lead to negative outcomes. Low intelligence of peers; low social expectation; low levels of opportunity; demand to work long hours for basic necessities; lack of disposable income to pursue various opportunities; lower quality education. A list that could go on, and on, and on.
That would be great if the kid values their education. Of course, those that do don’t really need the help
Bollox. If you really think every kid who values education is successful, then I struggle to believe you've ever experienced poverty or social disadvantage. I know a guy from my high school: a supremely talented mathematician. This kid was like a calculator. He loved school, he excelled at school. But his parents were shit. He was overweight, and they didn't help him. They bullied him and put him down. He didn't have many friends, and he was constantly teased and made to feel shit about himself. He is, by far, the most mathematically gifted person I have ever met, and yet: he didn't get any of the support he needed to succeed, from anyone. He didn't get the counselling, the encouragement, the social skills, and now he works in a shop. He's 30 and still lives at home, and he's even more overweight than ever.
People like you might say "he wasted it". Nah, he wanted a better life, and his absolute dearth of anyone to bolster his self esteem led to him giving up and meant the world lost the gifts of someone who could have been truly exceptional.
He hates himself, and nobody in a position of any real authority ever made an effort to teach him any different.
If your goal is to help people, cool. We can talk about strategies. If your goal is to level the playing field, then you are wrong and we can’t really talk. There is nothing specifically unjust about enequality as such. You seem to believe that the inequality was gain through unjust means. While that does happen, it is less the case than you suppose.
Trust me, I've seen both sides of the fence. I have a master's degree, I'm going to do a second. I've had to borrow, beg and cry to get to where I am. My parents worked minimum wage jobs and could never contribute to my education. Thankfully I had some mentors who believed in me, and the state facility to get educated. Without them I wouldn't be where I am. I would still be working minimum wage in some shop, too.
For me it's about creating an economic and social structure that allows children to realize their potential, and when they slip or when they have parents who do not love them or cannot -- financially, mentally, emotionally -- give them what they want, then its about having the support available to get them back on the right track. And for those who do not have the contributing potential -- the old, the infirm, the mentally ill, the dying, the disabled -- it's about supporting them as a society.
The success of a child is a victory for us.
However, as the life threatening/changing effects drugs has been public knowledge for many decades it can be taken as read that those who start taking drugs are mindlessly reckless and totally devoid of any common sense and should therefore be left to wallow in the quagmire of of their self imposed mental and physical agony without pity or state assistance.
Not all drugs are life threatening or life changing. Plenty of illegal drugs have marginal risk of negative social, psychological and physical effects. For example, natural cannabis strains with low THC content and higher CBD content have been used as relaxation medicines for thousands of years in myriad cultures. Only since the development of high THC, purpose-bred strains has this plant become synonymous with psychosis.
Likewise, not all legal drugs are harmless. Tobacco and alcohol -- two drugs which we know are highly addictive and destructive -- are legal. Not everybody who has a drink and ends up with a drinking problem are "mindless and reckless". Many people only discover the depths of their addictive personality after they have naïvely partaken in a culture where binge-drinking is somewhat a rite of passage. Likewise, most smokers have parents for smokers: it is often learned behaviour.
I should also point out that a lot of people who get into drugs don't get into drugs because they are devoid of common sense or because they are mindless: it is often because of peer pressure in socioeconomically deprived areas of society, where drugs offer an easy escape from a myriad of problems that come hand-in-hand with impoverishment.
The criminalisation of drug possession and the various three strikes laws in the US also make it the case that a person who has a problem with illegal substances becomes a criminal instead of a person with a medical issue. We treat alcoholism as a medical problem; we treat a gambling addiction as a mental health issue: why not other drugs or forms of addiction?
These weak minded lotus eaters should be left to perish just as mother nature's natural selection process intended
Social darwinism is only one small step from eugenics, and it fails to account for the plethora of social factors that play into addiction. What you're essentially saying is "addictive personality is a genetic weakness and mother nature should weed these people out of the gene pool". Well actually, addiction generally has only a minor genetic component. There is a higher risk of addiction in some people because their neurochemical reward pathways are dulled; they require more stimulation to get the same satisfaction from reward as less addictive people. But that only explains risk. It doesn't factor in the various social experiences that have had a psychologically and neurologically negative impact serious enough to lead to said addiction.
A person can be at heightened risk of Crohn's disease but able to stymy its onset by making good diet choices, the same way a person can be at heightened risk of addiction but able to stymy its onset by making a choice to refrain from addictive substances. The issue is that by the time a potential addict finds out they are more likely to be addicted: it's already too late.
It should, therefore, be treated as a health issue if we really want to eliminate its destructive effects on society. We can't just leave people to descend into chaos and death because they happen to have neurological wiring that makes them more susceptible to addictive substances. It's like saying we should leave cancer patients to die because their genetics put them at significantly higher risk of cancer.
As expected, a very America-centric view of medicine. "Medical innovation is the world's highest?" By what yard-stick? Your country is notoriously ineffective at keeping its population healthy.
As for research, that happens consistently in a socialised system. In fact, research output for medical journals, when normalised for population size, puts Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the UK, Canada, Australia, Belgium and Israel in front of the US in terms of citable peer reviewed articles.
Socialization of a healthcare system does not necessarily have a negative impact on medical research output.
I would petition you to actually spend some time in a country with a well funded, socialised system. Medicine costs less (because there is less profiteering involved in its production, and the national health services can choose their contractors with significant monopolisation power that drives down prices); treatments costs less; and populations, crucially, are healthier.
The UK has a horrendous waiting problem for everyday complaints, but that's largely a result of continuous governmental decisions to reduce funding, thereby reducing staff, and to privatise more elements of the system, which inevitably lead to a reduction in accessibility. There is also the tendency for people to burden the system with trivial complaints and appointments.
However, serious ailments are treated with the same time-sensitive quality of care as is mandated b any robust, common-sense medical code of practice. You don't have cancer patients waiting inordinate amounts of time for treatment like the American right would have you believe. It just doesn't happen.
MUT doesn’t ignore what you are describing, it explains it. When supply decreases, price tends to increase. This is because the people who only value it at the lower price are removed from the equation leaving only the people who will pay the higher price or above
Why do you so readily take this economic idea at face value? If the price increases due to scarcity it is because the seller has raised the price, not because the buyers at the original price only value it at that price, or because scarcity automatically increases price. It's opportunistic selling, not an inevitable consequence of a cause.
Economics .. could benefit from some basic psychology.