"We're Number 37"

For all you music lovers out there I heard about this sign along video on Twitter and just had to share.

Sicko Documentary

The Golden Rule Has Been Downgraded

Being raised a Christian I thought I knew what the "Golden Rule" was. Both the church I attended and my parents taught me to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And neither my parents nor the church used any qualifiers to restrict me from applying that rule to everyone I met.

As I grew older I discovered that Christians were not the only people who had this philosophy and that it could be found in almost every religion. Of course the other religions used their own words like, "That which is hateful unto you, do not impose on others" (Judaism) and "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" (Confucianism).

Today however I learned that there are now several golden rules. There is a Golden Rule savings rate, a Golden Rule (fiscal policy), Fermi's golden rule and Ronen's golden rule for cluster radioactivity. And what I used to call the Golden Rule is now called the ethic of reciprocity.

Now to be sure I knew the correct new name I searched online and found several places that defined the ethic of reciprocity as:

The ethic of reciprocity, more commonly known as the Golden Rule, is an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. Reciprocity is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, though it has its critics. A key element of the golden rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.

It looks like the Golden Rule has been downgraded from a religious Rule to a moral Ethic!

Now I have a few issues with this downgrade.

1. Did anyone get their God's permission?
   
   
2. Where as God's rules have to be obeyed or you suffer the consequences, ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality and often change significantly over time.
   

Of course making the Golden Rule an ethic does offer some benefits. People now control it's definition and

1. They can control who it applies to. In other words they can say the ethic only applies to people like themselves..
   
   
2. They can change it's definition to something like, do more for those who have the most in the hope they'll give you some.
   
   
3. They can decide it's no longer an moral ethic since it no longer applies to anyone.
   

I read somewhere that only those without power and those who have sympathy for them have moral ethics. And while I didn't initially believe this, the more I think about it the more I tend to agree.

Take the current arguments over health care reform that are going on right now. As I see it the arguing camps are:

1. Those who have health care and don't care about anyone else. (See number 1 above.)
   
   
2. Those who don't have health care and think things will get better if we leave our health care system alone. (See number 2 above.)
   
   
3. Those who do/don't have health care and think everyone should have it. (The current ethic of reciprocity.)
   
   
4. Those who make the decisions about health care and think keeping it a major, for-profit business is the most important issue. (See number 3 above.)
   

So I'll go back to one of my questions about making the Golden Rule an ethic -

Did anyone get their God's permission to make this downgrade?

If no one did then those who aren't following the rule are in big trouble and need to start preparing for their consequences.

Susan

Canadians talk to Americans about health care

So how bad is Canada's health care system? Watch the video to hear what the people using it think.

The right to life does not stop at birth

On July 6, 2009, Badtux the Snarky Penguin wrote a short article titled "The right to life does not stop at birth." The article is about Eric De La Cruz who died because he needed a heart transplant.

And while the article is very good and I encourage you to read it, I found Badtux's answer to 1 of the most common misunderstandings about how our country's and other countries' health care systems work to be outstanding.

So rather than re-post the article I'm posting 1 of the comments where the misconception that " government healthcare has more exclusions and limitations than private insurance" is cited as a good reason for not having a universal health care system in America. Below the comment you can read the response left by Badtux where he refutes this arguement with solid facts.

The Comment:

"I don't understand why you advocate government run healthcare when you simultanously evoke the memory of Eric De La Cruz? I hope you realize that entities like Britain's NHS and Canada's Single-payer system are known to deny procedures that private insurance carriers commonly approve. In other words, government healthcare has more exclusions and limitations than private insurance.

Additionally, in a single payer system, you cant turn anywhere else after a denial. At least in a private healthcare industry there is redundancy and overlap, which reduces the amount of people who "fall through the cracks."

My concern is that you equate government run healthcare with GUARANTEED healthcare, and this is sadly not the case. Not by a longshot. When nations collectivize food production, people get hungier, not fatter. When nations collectivize transportation, more people have to walk or bike to work. When nations collectivize housing, more people end up homeless. And when nations collectivize healthcare, more people will die of medical conditions."

Badtux's Reply:

"Eric would have gotten his heart transplant under the Canadian system. The Canadian system does *not* ration healthcare. There are waiting lists for voluntary procedures, but critical procedures are done immediately -- indeed, 50% of ALL procedures are done immediately. See BC health service website for example of the reality.

Eric would have also gotten his heart transplant under Medicare For All. Heart transplants are covered by Medicare. So once again he would have been saved by Medicare For All.

My preferred system is the French system, which is roughly Medicare For All plus Medigap. That is, Medicare covers all critical/expensive procedures, and you can buy Medigap to cover anything not covered by Medicare. This both gives you health care choices and assures that there are no more Erics. And they do this WHILE providing all the same advanced treatments as the US system, for 40% LESS MONEY!

As for the British, nobody proposes the British system for America. In the British system, all doctors are salaried employees of the state, and all hospitals are owned by the state, and private insurance is illegal. It is cheap -- 1/3rd the cost of the U.S. health care system -- but that is all that can be said for it.

As for your assertion that government-run healthcare will impoverish the people and result in more deaths, that has not happened in any of the other 19 OECD states that have adopted universal healthcare systems. Indeed, they pay much less of their GDP in healthcare costs -- see the OECD statistics. I fail to see how paying less for health care can IMPOVERISH a people. It just makes no sense.

- Badtux the "Facts are facts" Penguin"

I applaud Badtux for his great article and his even better response.

Susan