Philosophy Now Forum

National Health
It is a question for philosophers-economists to determine how we pay for our health service. It may be through taxes or by insurance payments. The question then is whether we are an egalitarian society or otherwise. If egalitarian then we will all get an equal share of the care available within budget. If we are not egalitarian but class or caste based, then some will get all they need while others may get virtually nothing, or there may be a private service for the ruling class and a ‘workhouse’ scheme for the servile class. If we are a globalised society of autonomous individuals then there is no class but people will live or die as fate has it. We might extend that to other necessities, such as housing, or the very bread we eat. Does Britain today have one overall health service, or is is split to serve the population differentially. How much are health workers, doctors, dentists, paid? That also will depend on the society they serve and mainly the resources available. In an egalitarian society there will be no competition for an excessive share of the resources or wealth available. The real wealth of a community is not money but the produce itself, without destroying the natural world.

I'm not processing the egalitarian aspect here as I know the word. Why should someone with a broken toe get a equal share of care as a cancer patient, or someone being flown in on a helicopter from a serious car accident? Shouldn't tge two principles of triage and needs factor in prior to egalitarianism?

enslave the medical class and force their labor on those who the state deems essential...

-Imp

Eqauality in a alruist society is about giving aid according to need and nature. It not about everyone having the same.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 9:14 pm I'm not processing the egalitarian aspect here as I know the word.

I was 'processing' the 'egalitarian aspect' VERY DIFFERENTLY.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 9:14 pm Why should someone with a broken toe get a equal share of care as a cancer patient, or someone being flown in on a helicopter from a serious car accident?

From how I 'process' an 'egalitarian aspect' here would be ALL with a 'broken toe' get treated equally, just like ALL with 'cancer' get treated equally, or ALL being flown in on a helicopter from ANY car accident get treated equally. That is; those with the EXACT SAME 'conditions' get treated EQUALLY no matter 'class', 'caste', nor 'wealth'.

Constantine wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 9:14 pm Shouldn't tge two principles of triage and needs factor in prior to egalitarianism?

To 'process' 'egalitarianism' as, one with a 'runny nose', for example, should be treated EQUALLY as one with a 'spinal cord injury', for example, would just be some sort of 'faulty processing', or 'confirmation bias' at play. Well to me anyway.

To me, 'egalitarianism' here is about EVERY one with the SAME 'medical condition' being treated EQUALLY, and NOT DIFFERENTLY just because of skin color, monetary wealth, job, class, age, gender, and the other NON 'medical things'.

BUT, "rwstanding" may well have been MEANING or REFERRING TO some 'thing' ELSE, which if 'you' were, then PLEASE Correct me.