I don't believe our NHS is that bad. It has its problems, such as the local Health Authority funding issues, and the resultant post-code lottery regarding available treatment options, but fundamentally I agree with the priniciple of 'free' treatment for all.
I do think there should be consistency across the UK, and don't like to see the gradual 'chipping away' of cover, or means testing, just to save money - unless that comes with the option to properly opt out and go private.
I very much agree with you in regards to people's choices for home schooling. I think it's important to have a choice in health as well, so that people who are able to afford private care may do so (maybe they have surgeries that cannot wait and otherwise they would be on a waiting list) but I think the number of private clinics should be regulated.
I also don't really find myself agreeing with a certain ideology, but I strongly believe in universal healthcare that has nothing to do with insurance companies, but is run by the government. I also find myself believing that the top percentage of earners (those will millions, and at least hundreds of thousands) should be taxed more.
Certainly in contemporary capitalist societies in which the ultra-rich benefit the most from the state, but are taxed the least, I find your viewpoint highly persuasive. I think this issue (as well as politics in general) is something about which I need to research a lot further.
I favour a society that provides healthcare to all people, but I don't think this end justifies all means to achieve it. precisely I don't think a compulsory government payment for a universal healthcare program, is justified.
I thought about mentioning this perspective in the video, but decided to keep things simple. I do have a lot of sympathy as well as qualms about the anarchist viewpoint on issues like this; it is certainly a legitimate political stance. And you are right to draw a distinction between prescribing a society with universal healthcare and forcing society to have universal healthcare.
I agree. The problem the current debate is it's a topic that's so important to people's daily lives that it's been picked up the American news media.
Which immediately means there is no room for intelligent debate and we['re forced to once again unequivocally side with the left (Universal healthcare). Just because unlike the GOP they don't think eating babies is a good idea.
That is a fair point; I unequivocally reject the Conservative approach that characterises the USA media and its latest moral panic concerning Sarah Palin's fabricated 'death panels' (cue dramatic Hollywood music) and the imagined failures of the NHS, which apparently includes involuntarily euthanizing Stephen Hawking; oh the hilarity.
As an American living abroad I agree with renegade4dio. Living in the UK has spoiled me rotten, and Englishmen take their health care system for granted.
My attempts thus far to turn Rowan into a healtcare reformist fanatic have thus far been unsucessful.
When I say I am ambivalent I mean that I am unsure about how society should guarantee everyone access to healthcare and not whether society should guarantee access to healthcare. However, it is probably reasonable to say I am not acquainted with the problems faced by those nations that lack a universal health care system like the NHS; such a perspective might leave me less ambivalent even concerning implementation.
Ambivalence in the face of uncertainty is intellectually equivalent to honesty. I'm very involved in the US healthcare debate. I'm dedicated to the idea that basic health care is a "right" in any modern society, not just for the good of the poor, but for the good of the society as a whole. I'm currently agitating for a european style socialist NHS and against forcing everyone to buy private insurance but I'm open to other ways healthcare might be structured to fulfill the perceived right.
Indeed, there seems to be strong economic arguments for promoting the good health of the poorer members of society for the good of the whole society; ultimately, having a sickly, unemployable populace is to nobodies benefit.
Ambivalence in the face of uncertainty is intellectually equivalent to honesty.
BTW, I've tried several times to make the response to your question about "Art for art's sake" but find myself very unsatisfied with the results. You've caused me to spend a significant amount of time researching what other people have had to say on the subject so that I didn't sound so utterly ignorant of it as I did on my first attempt. I suppose I should thank you for your indirect education in the Didactism debate.
I have way too much invested now, you will get a response. Eventually.
It is a great subject to get acquainted with, right? I studied aesthetics and didacticism in my final year literature degree course and it has stood out in my memory as one of the more interesting issues. Indeed, I have been planning a video on the subject for months, which has slowly altered into a video about my general philosophical perspective on art. Your answer could give me more some ideas for that, I await for it eagerly. Be sure to message me a link in case I miss it in the sub box.
Nicely articulated. I think maybe it is best to be in transition (as you say) about one's political world view and instead to focus on the values that a political view should uphold. How something is achieved may need to change, but the fundamental value is more straight forward. Sounds like a good way to be open minded. Hope all is well with you, Lo
I don't believe our NHS is that bad. It has its problems, such as the local Health Authority funding issues, and the resultant post-code lottery regarding available treatment options, but fundamentally I agree with the priniciple of 'free' treatment for all.
I do think there should be consistency across the UK, and don't like to see the gradual 'chipping away' of cover, or means testing, just to save money - unless that comes with the option to properly opt out and go private.
IGrazor 2 years ago
I find your position on this strong and consistent with my values, thanks for sharing your views.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I very much agree with you in regards to people's choices for home schooling. I think it's important to have a choice in health as well, so that people who are able to afford private care may do so (maybe they have surgeries that cannot wait and otherwise they would be on a waiting list) but I think the number of private clinics should be regulated.
ninapoetry 2 years ago
I also don't really find myself agreeing with a certain ideology, but I strongly believe in universal healthcare that has nothing to do with insurance companies, but is run by the government. I also find myself believing that the top percentage of earners (those will millions, and at least hundreds of thousands) should be taxed more.
ninapoetry 2 years ago
Certainly in contemporary capitalist societies in which the ultra-rich benefit the most from the state, but are taxed the least, I find your viewpoint highly persuasive. I think this issue (as well as politics in general) is something about which I need to research a lot further.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I favour a society that provides healthcare to all people, but I don't think this end justifies all means to achieve it. precisely I don't think a compulsory government payment for a universal healthcare program, is justified.
Tasmosunt 2 years ago
I thought about mentioning this perspective in the video, but decided to keep things simple. I do have a lot of sympathy as well as qualms about the anarchist viewpoint on issues like this; it is certainly a legitimate political stance. And you are right to draw a distinction between prescribing a society with universal healthcare and forcing society to have universal healthcare.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I agree. The problem the current debate is it's a topic that's so important to people's daily lives that it's been picked up the American news media.
Which immediately means there is no room for intelligent debate and we['re forced to once again unequivocally side with the left (Universal healthcare). Just because unlike the GOP they don't think eating babies is a good idea.
manwaring 2 years ago
That is a fair point; I unequivocally reject the Conservative approach that characterises the USA media and its latest moral panic concerning Sarah Palin's fabricated 'death panels' (cue dramatic Hollywood music) and the imagined failures of the NHS, which apparently includes involuntarily euthanizing Stephen Hawking; oh the hilarity.
What a fun Cioranesque world we live in.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
As an American living abroad I agree with renegade4dio. Living in the UK has spoiled me rotten, and Englishmen take their health care system for granted.
My attempts thus far to turn Rowan into a healtcare reformist fanatic have thus far been unsucessful.
manwaring 2 years ago
When I say I am ambivalent I mean that I am unsure about how society should guarantee everyone access to healthcare and not whether society should guarantee access to healthcare. However, it is probably reasonable to say I am not acquainted with the problems faced by those nations that lack a universal health care system like the NHS; such a perspective might leave me less ambivalent even concerning implementation.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Ambivalence in the face of uncertainty is intellectually equivalent to honesty. I'm very involved in the US healthcare debate. I'm dedicated to the idea that basic health care is a "right" in any modern society, not just for the good of the poor, but for the good of the society as a whole. I'm currently agitating for a european style socialist NHS and against forcing everyone to buy private insurance but I'm open to other ways healthcare might be structured to fulfill the perceived right.
renegade4dio 2 years ago
Indeed, there seems to be strong economic arguments for promoting the good health of the poorer members of society for the good of the whole society; ultimately, having a sickly, unemployable populace is to nobodies benefit.
Ambivalence in the face of uncertainty is intellectually equivalent to honesty.
I really like that.
Thanks for commenting.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
BTW, I've tried several times to make the response to your question about "Art for art's sake" but find myself very unsatisfied with the results. You've caused me to spend a significant amount of time researching what other people have had to say on the subject so that I didn't sound so utterly ignorant of it as I did on my first attempt. I suppose I should thank you for your indirect education in the Didactism debate.
I have way too much invested now, you will get a response. Eventually.
renegade4dio 2 years ago
It is a great subject to get acquainted with, right? I studied aesthetics and didacticism in my final year literature degree course and it has stood out in my memory as one of the more interesting issues. Indeed, I have been planning a video on the subject for months, which has slowly altered into a video about my general philosophical perspective on art. Your answer could give me more some ideas for that, I await for it eagerly. Be sure to message me a link in case I miss it in the sub box.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Nicely articulated. I think maybe it is best to be in transition (as you say) about one's political world view and instead to focus on the values that a political view should uphold. How something is achieved may need to change, but the fundamental value is more straight forward. Sounds like a good way to be open minded. Hope all is well with you, Lo
tinySpectacle 2 years ago 2
You make a good point about the flexibility of effective ways to achieve values.
I'm doing find thanks; I hope all is well with you too.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Well, what you call a meagre response is much better than what I can come up with days and lots of whiskey to help me think about it. :P
DavidRandallCurtis 2 years ago 2
Thanks for the kind words; I am glad all that pre-recording cognac paid off ;)
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago