Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:24:03 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kim_Gammelg=E5rd?= <kim.gammelgaard-AT-get2net.dk>
Subject: Re: oh yeah - yankees


I thought that this list was a place for people that had the basic 
understanding of logic. But it seems - as often before - that emotions are 
what is running the democratic process:

lørdag den 24 november 2001 kl. 21:34 skrev John Foster :

> I thank you Bob for your point; however my comment was that millions of US
> citizens 'lack medical coverage' and therefore when they are treated for
> serious illnesses, and accidents, of an emergency kind, they are not able 
> to
> pay for the costs because they lack the insurance.
> Here in Canada and Europe
> all citizens are covered by 'universal forms of medical insurance' that is
> payed for by taxes, and other government revenues.

Instead of accepting that the argument is incorrect - that there is no 
medical coverage for 80 million Americans -  the question is now redefined:
  Millions of Americans cannot pay for the medical coverage they get because 
they don't have a personal insurance. That they are getting the medical 
coverage is forgotten for the sake of the argument and John is just  
putting forward his emotional stress on this topic.  I must admit though, 
that this kind of rhethoric is fascinating.

> In Costa Rica all visitors are covered by state medical facilities and
> services; no one pays directly, but Costa Rica has no military, so it has 
> a
> different motto than the US which it fought with once after William Walker
> wanted to conquer and enslave....

Then there is a connection between military and other type of spending. If 
I read this correctly, all US citizens with a serious illness and no 
insurance should go to Costa Rica and get treated as all visitors are 
covered by state medical facilities, because no one pays directly, as Costa 
Rica has no military to spend its money on. I am not sure where the motto 
comes in here, but it must be an insider joke somehow to establish an 
emotional stronghold.

> Those persons who are injured in the US are often shunted to public and
> non-profit medical facilities when there is no evidence of medical 
> coverage.
> This is an example of a two-tiered health care system: one for the rich and
> one for the poor.

I am not sure that I would know of any non-profit medical facilities 
without evidence of medical coverage. Those are again very strong emotional 
arguments, and hardly worthy on a philosophy list. No evidence of medical 
coverage is *NO* evidence of medical coverage, not even a band-aid.

>
> There are horrendous stories in the media of Canadians getting injured in
> the US during vacations, etc, who did not have any private medical
> insurance, and having been forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for
> care. When a Canadian requires the same medical care in Canada, they pay
> nothing or a very small amount via Federal Taxes)

A very interesting point is the story about Canadians who have come to a 
different country - where they do not pay taxes or otherwise support the 
system by having a personal insurance - and expect service as they get in 
their own country which they are only getting because they pay taxes there.
  It is even written out in the above statement that they can expect 
coverage in Canada where they pay taxes. Perhaps they should have a common 
insurance scheme like the Danish, whereby you - being a Danish tax payer - 
are entitled to medical help if you get ill on vacation in most European 
countries, thereby excluding the US and Canada, btw. and if you have any 
expenditures that way, they will be refunded by the insurance company that 
the Danish state got the insurance from or you will fill out a form at the 
doctor or hospital you end up at that will ensure payment is made for your 
medical bill afterwards.

Perhaps they should have gone to Costa Rica instead or otherwise have 
prepared for their travel. As long at there is no single world government,
  but a world that consists of more or less independent states, this will be 
the case, and even then you will still have to make sure in advance if you 
need special equipment or treatment before you go somewhere, get 
vaccination, buy warm clothes, get a travel insurance,  remember to check 
the expiry date of your passport or identity card etc. If they had gone to 
Denmark or other European countries without insurance, they would have 
faced the same situation.

Perhaps the a lack of awareness of how much money it takes to run a 
hospital and other medical facilities is the culprit. Evidence is given in 
the very last line of the argument that Canadians pay nothing or a very 
small amount via Federal Taxes. I am sure that *all* medical coverage costs 
money, and I know that a large part of my taxes here in Denmark are being 
used in the medical sector, which is fine for me, but I know that it is 
expensive. This is again an emotional argument that lacks scrutiny.

> The question that I posed was about 'self-interests' in nations. It seems
> that the US government is more interested in funding military solutions to
> resolve it's foreign affairs (?), rather than take care of it's own
> citizens. For instance next year the US will spending up to 49% of it's
> federal tax dollars on military expenditures. At the same time, for
> instance, only $1  billion will be spent on new school buildings (recent
> figure from www.alternet.org)

Then the question of 'Self-interest', which is what puzzles me the most. I 
believe that it is evident that you cannot compare percentages and whole 
numbers like it is done here, (up to 49% and 1 billion are compared. This 
leads to no logical conclusions) and it is evident that it is hardly 
interesting to know how much money someone will spend on new school 
buildings, if there are sufficient beforehand and if funding for keeping 
the  existing schools is sufficient (I must add that I have no evidence 
that either assumption is correct, but am only looking at the argument as 
such.)

I must admit that lost the original argument of the paragraph because of 
this lack of consistency, but it seems like a very relevant questions 
whether the US government does or does not take care of its own citizens, 
if the government has a reasonable legitimacy towards its citizens or not,
  if it would have had more legitimacy if it instead of hunting Bin Laden 
would have spend the money on a common health care system, to what degree 
it needs to have legitimacy towards the inhabitants of other nations, if 
this 'self-interest'-discussion is applicable to other nations as well, and 
to bring Heidegger into it, how and if the notion of Gestell creates the 
ground for our view of the modern medical system and the current model of 
the world with a number of nation states with self-interest to worry about.

I thought that when thinkers were discussing, they would at least abide to 
the stuff they learned 1st year in college or even before, but perhaps 
Politics does require lack of consistency, a lot of rhethoric and many 
irrelevant emotions and should therefore not be discussed in a Heideggerian 
forum at all?

Just my 2 ¢,

Kim


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---