|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Futureswhat will the future hold?
will free markets, private enterprise, and global market integration increase prosperity and improve human welfare?
will the world press on with unattended social and environmental problems, such as the growing gap between rich and poor (which we would foresee social instability, rising conflict, and widespread degradation)? or will the future be one that assumes compassion and human ingenuity to extend opportunity and access to all humanity?
the free-market world:
- drop tariffs, privative, deregulate, idolize competitive market forces. promote exports, seek foreign investments, encourage savings and entrepreneurship, emphasize education and health to build up human capital. globalization. heck, tear down corporations, otherwise, it'll be 6 billion folks competing for scraps and the smaller group of others living as citizens under boundary-transcending multinational conglomerates.... more modernized global regulation would probably have to be implemented to contain corruption. there are already the international accounting standards (IAS) in the works for accounting purposes (which really just encourages a tiny bit of transparency and a larger bit of standardized methods in valuing assets, liabilities, expense, and income). the upshot is: will the ideals of human ingenuity and enterpsrise manage to pervade the world and iron out the social/environmental wrinkles and towards progress, or will greed have its way for some, and everyone else will just has to play under un-equalized grounds? Will the free market world find a way to redistribute and equalize or will this world, posed as free market, really become a fortress world (hoarded resources for elite groups only) divided by a well-defined economic strait? the poor, bereft of all prosperity, will only let out a cry for help or find ways to export their misery through crime or violence.
ummm...
ok, back to work...
| | |
| if you want to live longerbased on historical demographics, to live longer you should:
1. not be a newborn, old person, or be a teen or in the early 20s (the last is due to lifestyle choice)
2. moderately consume alcohol, preferably wine (or just relax)
3. have higher education levels
4. be a woman
5. do not incur alcohol or cigarette abuse (or any substance abuse)
6. be wealthy
7. be married
8. avoid obesity
9. work a professional "white collar" job
10. be asian or pacific islander (or live in sardinia)
11. be a part of some religious group (it's mainly being in a less stressful and social environment)
12. don't smoke
i guess none of these are surprising.
| | |
| the canadian healthcare systemit's called "medicare"
and it's publicly financed, but privately run.
they have universal coverage, and each province is in charge of running things.
and care is free.
the system is based on five founding principles, though not perfectly adhered to:
- universal (100% of residents are entitled to plan)
- portable (canadians travelling outside province can be covered in another province)
- comprehensive (provides necessary hospital and physician services)
- accessible (reasonable access to service, not impeded by user charges or extra billing)
- publicly administered (health plan must be operating under non-profit basis)
the plan is funded mainly by tax dollars. in 2000, about 70 percent of health expenditures were through public funding. healthcare costs make up about 10% of GDP, whereas the US costs are over 15% GDP as of 2005. from a symposium i attended, for 2008, healthcare expenditures for the US are at least twice as much as any other country.
though canadian healthcare providers are predominantly private, they are still funded by public money, and naturally, are cost-regulated by the government. there are fee schedules that "opted-in" physicians cannot bill beyond.
but like with any other country, medical costs are rising and demands for medical attention grow and grow as the population grows in numbers and in age.
DOWNSIDES:
- waiting lists due to(e.g., average wait time for cranial MRI scan in Canada is 5 months, whereas in US is 3 days):
- poor accountability
- decision-making becomes politicised
- single-payer government control leads to a lack of innovation (ideal benefit in capitalistic structure)
- dilapidated technology and equipment
- role of private services are limited to supplemental care (core services cannot be covered by private insurance plans)
these may not necessarily the downsides for all universal healthcare plans (cf with switzerland and france)
it seems like the US is a unique situation. 50 states a population of 300 or so million. healthcare is mainly conducted under the private sector (except for elders over 65 (especially long-term care), disableds, and low-income folk who's insurance is provided by the government). will universal healthcare work for a country whose healthcare industry may be more capitalistic-minded than social-minded? though some businesses, such as kaiser ARE run under a non-profit basis, but physicians still have many benefits not provided to other medical staff (as a means for retaining talent in hopes of maximizing good service or increased innovation). is this permissible?
how do we minimize healthcare costs due to technology?
canada is allowing for creeping privatization (the option for user fees and more comprehensive private insurance plans). all in all, canada's healthcare system is currently performing well relative to other countries... what are they doing right? can such structures and "good things" be implemented in this country?
with universal healthcare comes difficulties in accessibility.
| | |
| in the old days, at least in korea, doctors were in a lower social status compared to teachers. it was because the traditional belief is that doctor's should not earn money due to tending to necessary medical needs. the physician is a servant to the patient. in fact, it was almost usurious to take money to provide medical services.
... so can doctors be justified in demanding higher and higher wages? because isn't the heart of it the patient-physician relationship?
| | |
| "oh this looks like it would be a recipe for disaster! but i much appreciate the sentiment"i ran around abbot kinney with a wine glass while checking out various art galleries this evening.
my favorite was by a darker artist.
the concept was classy elegance mixed with skulls of animals and topped off with the nightmare before christmas.
i don't really know, but i want to say the artist is a she.
but i'm not sure if the theme is suppose to depict the true colors of cult classes or if the skulls of various animals represented the personality of the body it's positioned on - if the ballerina is like a rabbit, or if the well-dressed woman is catty.
but the artist's quality and use of color was so perfect. every portrait was detailed and conceptual.
i was touched. i was more touched than by gladys's abstract square art or by the exhibit photographing the greatest ganja users.
| | |
|
