A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Medicine/Health

47 Million

by Leave a Comment

According to the latest figures, 47 million Americans (our of 300 million) lack health insurance. Given the high cost of medicine, this seems to be a serious problem.

In some cases, those without such coverage are actually reasonably well off. For example, I have friends who work state jobs that pay very well but do not provide benefits.  Such people can afford to pay for basic services, but something serious could completely devastate them.

Most of those without insurance probably are not in very good financial straits. After all, most people get health insurance as soon as they can afford it or when their job provides it. For such people even basic care might be beyond their limited means. People do point out that hospitals cannot turn people away, but going to the emergency room for basic ailments is hardly an effective solution.

One problem with the situation is the fact that people actually do need insurance. After all, we do not need insurance for other basics, such as food.  This is because food is generally priced so people can afford it. Of course, some aspects of medicine are justifiably expensive-MRI machines, for example, don’t come cheap. However, costs are rather high and perhaps needlessly so.

Will National Health care help?

Well, it depends on what it actually does and does not do. But, to keep it simple, consider the basic plan of requiring everyone to have insurance.

On one hand, this can be good thing. After all, with insurance people will presumably be able to afford  medial care.

On the other hand, there are two obvious problems. First, there is the matter of paying for such coverage. Of course, we can always raise taxes and take out more foreign loans. China, I’m sure, would be happy to loan us more money. Second, there is the concern that such insurance will raise medical costs even more than they are now, thus making the insurance less useful.

Fear of Flying

by 2 Comments

I am terrified of heights. So much so, in fact, that even the thought of flying results in a lingering dread that haunts me-albeit in a very small way (like a ghost of a gnat).This fear of heights also applies to things like mountains and buildings.

When I’ve been in skyscrapers, I always felt rather uncomfortable-as if, at any moment, the floors would vanish beneath me and I would be given a rather quick trip to the basement.

I have no idea why I have this fear-I’ve never had a really bad fall and I’ve never been in a plane crash. Often it seems that fears are just there. Since most people do get afraid when actually falling, perhaps it is just some over active set of neurons that get rather fired up about this matter.

Naturally, some people find this fear rather amusing and like to see how I’ll react to such situations. The very best of the lot was done by my ex-wife (this is not, I assure you, why she is my ex). We were visiting a park in Maine and she wanted to visit the top of the mountain. So, we were driving up the mountain road and, as always, I fell asleep in the car. Seeing this, she pulled right up the guard rail and awoke me by pushing my face into the window-so it seemed that I was about to fall off the side of the mountain. I’m reasonably sure that only years of running kept my heart from failing. But, it was pretty funny.

Since I know I have this fear, I make it a point to always sit by the window on flights and stare out the window during take offs and landings. I also clean the gutters of my house and climb things when the opportunity presents itself. This is because I believe that my actions are under my control and not under the control of my irrational fear. So, I do what I need to do and simply endure that senseless feeling of terror.

I find this very interesting in terms of what it indicates about the mind. Specifically, it raises intriguing questions about choice and the interaction between the rational and the irrational aspects of the mind. Of course, I like to believe that my will is such that it can act freely in the face of such things as fear. This is something of a classic view of the mind and the freedom of the will.

However, the current view of the mind tends towards a materialist view and the idea that the mind is merely the functions of the nervous system. If this is true, then this so called will is merely one set of functions taking precedence over another set of functions. Regardless, I still fear to fly…but do it anyway. No, I don’t drink when I’m flying. 🙂

Saving Pets

by 2 Comments

In the July 30, 2007 issue of Newsweek, Frederick R. Lynch told the story of how he spent $11,000 (US) in veterinary bills to save his cat, Fritz. Fritz was suffering from cancer and required numerous medical procedures. While Lynch’s story made it into the pages of Newsweek, his choice is not uncommon. Other people, including some close friends, have done the same for their beloved pets.

Of course, some people would see spending that much on a pet to be a waste of money. Those that give the matter some thought might say that the money could do more good if spent on something else rather than to save a pet. For example, the money could be spent to help another human being.

While that view has some merit, the same can be said in regards to most of what people spend money on. People, at least in wealthy countries like the United States, routinely spend money on luxury items. For example, if someone buys herself a new iPod, that money could have done more good if it had been donated to help a starving person. As another example, think of the extremely expensive parties that stars throw. These parties can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more)-all for one night of enjoyment. As another example, think of all the other ways wealthy people spend money on needless luxuries. This money could do a great deal of good if spent on other things. If such spending were acceptable (which might not be the case), then spending money on a pet would certainly be acceptable. In fact, when compared to such luxury spending, saving a pet is quite laudable

Perhaps the best argument in favor of spending money to save a pet is based on love. In the case of spending money to save a human, such a parent spending large amounts of money to save a sick child, it is also the case that the money could be spent to do more good elsewhere. For example, the money spent on expensive cancer treatments for a child could be used to save many children who have conditions that are less expensive to treat. However, a parent who spent the money to save her child instead of helping strangers would not be regarded as doing something wrong. In fact, she would most likely be praised for her devotion to her child.

In the case of the parent, she is justified in her choice because of her relationship to her child-he is someone she loves. Now, if this applies in the case of human beings, then it should also apply to pets as well. After all, people love their pets very much.

It might be objected that a human is worth more than a pet. Perhaps that is true. But, the same could be said of individual humans. The money the mother spends on her child could have been used to save people who are better than her child. Unless he is the best human in the world, then there would be other people who could be helped who would be better. The important difference is not who is better-but who is loved by the person spending the money.

%d bloggers like this: