(Dec 11, 2016 04:42 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: That was a fortunate misunderstanding because I love your reply. Oh dear, now I could so easily go off topic, and I am so excited I can am struggling to think. Before women were liberated they did everything for free, just because that is what a good woman did. Now hopefully, she was supported by a husband or old family money, so she was free to do all the meaningful things a woman did. If anyone wants to argue the merits of what I am saying, take it to thread about human values. Rainbow Unicorn, you are already there and I am very enjoying the rapport we are developing.There is no getting around, it cost money to do the necessary research. Perhaps capitalism is not the best way to do things, or perhaps we can tweak capitalism to make it work better? If we keep our eye on cause and effect and holding industry accountable, then taking care of the environment becomes cost effective. It is organizing to change the perspective- instead of environment protection being an added cost, we want to develop the organization, perspective, and motivation that it is cost effective to protect the environment.
What if we paid attention to all the unpaid work done by family and volunteers? Might that change our perspective about humanity and our values?
However, for this thread I want to bring out what the government is doing, because we may experience a lot of confusion about this. Our government on verious levels is making a huge investment in our health and well being. True some very immoral profiterring seems evident, and talk about the selfish gene may lead us to believe everyone is just being selfish in an uncaring world. But the reality is, our government also spends a lot on our health and we might be able to improve upon this.
The cost of every product, needs to include the cost of preventing or correcting the damage it does. The tax on alcholic beverages needs to cover all the damage causes by alchoholism. The tax on cigarettes needs to cover all the damage caused by cigarettes. The tax on pesticides and hericides needs to cover the cost of damage, including the living and medical expenses of those harmed by these chemicals.
I believe universal health insurance is very important for many reasons. One of them is coordinating the gathering of revenue from products that may cause health problems, and distributing it to those in need. This would increase the drive to reduce medical and living assistance cost, by reducing the threats to our health.
Right now I have a super great medical insurance that reduces it cost, by paying us to get regular check ups. This insurance company got, they save money by reducing our health problems with regular monitoring.
Quote:indeed and while personal accountability is an ideal value in express terms, if we never bother to look at the system and see how we can make it better then nothing will ever change. e.g where would we be if there was no environmental laws ? yet if big business had its way there would be none(note big business includes down flow to agricultural sectors where things like DNA mutating chemicals are pumped into the water supply and food.) while many would wish to control the discussion and make it go around in circles talkng about personal health choices to distract and avoid talking about environmental impacts DNA mutating chemicals and contaminated food & water supplys. the real issue is the actual scientific reality of neuralogical diseases being addressed scientifically.
business wont seek to make a profit off curing something until the death rate becomes soo great that the government offers up free money to them from the dead and dying people. such is capitalism.
We would not have the technology and economy we have today if utilities were not made public and affordable for all. How did the people who manifested this reality think about private interest and the public good? Should health be treated differently than public utilities? Why? If a child in a comes to school with lice, soon the lice will spread and spread. Insisting treating lice is a private matter, is kind of dumb. A sickly population is not good for the economy. We can see this is Africa.
What is in the public's best interest and what is the most cost effective? One's perspective on this might be different if a loved one has Parkinson's disease and it possible this was caused by farming practices and harmful man-made chemicals. Better science should help. A good understanding of cause and effect should resolve some of our problems. Perhaps before a product goes on the market it should be tested for possible side effects?