stargeek
Simple is the new blackSimple is the new blackSimple is the new black 06/05/2005 10:49 PM A new design in progress, then, and a long and rambling post to test it out.1I think it's the sixth this site has had since 2001. Like, Tom Coates, I'm going back to the extremely simple. Paring things right down,... This is a GrokNews Entry: (what is grok?)Simple is the new blackGrok Headline matches for Simple is the new blackHEALTH CARE:
|
 Canada has an enviable record of providing universal, quality health care at a reasonable price for the last half a century. But, as in every other country, our health care system is facing several strains:
Fortunately, and to the chagrin of the Canadian neocons, the vast majority of Canadian's aren't buying this Orwellian deceit. Recent polls say support for a public, single-class health care system is as high as ever. So what's a civilized country to do to deal with the three great challenges of 21st century health care bulleted above? I recently listened to a talk show featuring the federal Minister of Health, discussing how these problems should be solved. Caller after caller said the same two things:
What one listener of this talk show said about neoncons' true motivation for wanting two-tier health care was also telling: "The reason rich politicians want a two class system is that they're embarrassed to have to wait in line for health services the same as 'ordinary' Canadians, when their US business colleagues can jump the queue so easily and have their company write off the extra cost as a business expense. They're also embarrassed that, to jump the queue, they have to fly to the US and pay out of their own pocket". So in fact there is a choice for the very rich to jump the queue: Pay for treatment in the private US system. Is Canada's health care system the best in the world? Far from it. Health care in Canada's cities is much better than in rural areas. The bureaucracy in much of the system (notably the blood collection system and the 'walk-in' clinics) is suffocating, and needlessly so. And because of its zeal to protect jobs in the system, Canada, which ranks first in the world in per-capita patents of medical technology, ranks forty-first in the world in the use of modern medical technology in its hospitals (MRI equipment is as scarce as gold, for example). But it's still an excellent system, and one that a two-class health care system won't improve, at least for 95% of the population. If only the politicians and bureaucrats only had the intelligence and vision to listen to the Wisdom of Crowds and make the two changes (more paraprofessional/self-care, and more prevention instead of treatment) that the public is already starting to make themselves, our system would be the best in the world. Oh -- a word about prescription drug costs: You may have heard that many Americans come up to Canada to buy prescription drugs much cheaper than they can buy them in the US. Now, US municipal and state governments are fighting for the right to buy their drugs from Canada, too (and Kerry wants them to have this right). The funny thing is, the companies selling them are essentially all the same companies, since the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is dominated by the same handful of global corporations as the US industry. Why do these companies charge more in the US than the rest of the world for the same drugs? Not, as the neocons and the pharma industry are telling Americans, because Canadian drugs are inferior (perhaps, it is implied, dangerously so) -- they are the identical drugs. They sell them for higher prices in the US because they can. Drug companies charge as much as the market will bear, and in the bloated US health care system where if you have enough money you can buy anything, the market will bear a lot. In the rest of the world money available for drugs is much less, so to sell their products pharma companies lower prices by 30, 50, even 70%, and still make a good margin. This is a case where globalization threatens to backfire on some of the corporations that most benefit from it. Couldn't happen to a nice bunch of guys. |
Looks like all those pastel
PSPs Sony was showing at E3 were just a tease. According to an
interview in Japanese game magazine Famitsu, Sony claims the
various color PSPs were "just for reference. We plan to make the
system black." I wouldn't worry too much, though. I'm sure if the PSP
does well at all, color models will start showing up in no time at
all.
Read
[IGN via Portagame]
chrisabraham.com/2005/04/evil_man_in_bla.html
track
this site | 5 links
 No one who has read The Boondocks has a neutral opinion about its writer, Aaron McGruder. You either love him or hate him, or vacillate between the two extremes. The twenty-something radical leftie is working on a Simpsons-style animated series that will air, ironically, on Fox, probably next year, and as the New Yorker reported last month, he's managed to outrage almost everyone of every political stripe, including other cartoonists who say that he's gotten lazy (the strip is now drawn by Jennifer Seng, though McGruder still does the writing), and that he's relentless to the point of being tedious and unfunny. He is the most banned cartoonist in history, with many of the 300+ papers carrying the strip having cut it at one time or another. But as I think the above strip from last week shows, McGruder's biting wit has lost none of its edge, and demonstrates a fearlessness that goes beyond even what Doonsbury and Bloom County achieved. |
 If
you're a regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm
opposed to unregulated 'free' trade, very worried about the
extraterritoriality of the WTO, NAFTA, Davos and other corporatist
captives, strongly opposed to domestic corporations 'offshoring' jobs,
using influence with the Bush regime and other right-wing governments
to circumvent social and environmental laws and responsibilities, and
a
great believer in taking the pledge to buy local, and in community
self-sufficiency.At the same time, I'm a strong supporter of the UN and other multi-lateral NGOs, and I believe that we each have a responsibility for the well-being of all the people and creatures of this world. Some readers have said this view is inconsistent, and I wasn't quite sure how to respond to such charges. Fortunately, Peter Singer, in his recent book on global ethics, I'll have more to say next week about Bush's fraudulent and despicable Earth Day media blitz, and the major media's shameless lack of critical evaluation of the utter nonsense that his propaganda machine has been churning out this week on the environment -- newspeak of Orwellian proportions. The first part of Singer's book deals with environmental responsibility, and his prescription for increasing it -- immediate ratification of Kyoto by the US and other holdout countries, and introduction of an emissions trading mechanism to make the realization of Kyoto feasible (subject to the need for some oversight on the disposition of the proceeds of such trading when it involves autocratic governments). The second part of the book deals with the global economy, and Singer adroitly tears apart the Economist's (and other neocons') naive assertion that economic globalization somehow benefits both rich and poor countries. He then goes on to prescribe a substantial reform of the WTO and the GATT, which could actually lead to more equitable distribution of wealth and more efficient production of economic goods, while safeguarding human rights, labour and the environment. Unfortunately, the multi-national corporations and corporatists who hold sway in the WTO would never tolerate Singer's prescription, since it would entirely divert the benefits of economic globalization from their pockets to those of the world's poor. The third part of the book deals with international law, and Singer lashes out at Bush for his unconscionable refusal to ratify the International Court of Justice, and for the UN's continued hesitancy to accept a duty (not a right) to intervene in situations of genocide and other humanitarian crises, even within a single nation. Singer is sanguine about the limitations and dangers of 'global government', but supports strengthening the UN to enable it to act as a 'protector of last resort', and including in its mandate the responsibility to supervise elections in all member nations. The fourth and final part goes back to ethical principles and proposes that countries must, in this world where national boundaries no longer have any logistic meaning, set aside national interest and embrace, once and for all, global interest, impartially. That does not mean cultural homogenization, but imposes a responsibility for the reduction of inequality, both of economic resources and personal rights and freedoms. Always the pragmatist, Singer concludes by worrying out loud about how the responsibility for a global ethic could be managed: It
is widely believed that a world government would be, at best, an
unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that would make the bureaucracy of the
EU look lean and efficient. At worst, it would become a global
tyranny,
unchecked and unchallengeable. These thoughts have to be taken
seriously. How to prevent global bodies becoming either dangerous
tyrannies or self-aggrandizing bureaucracies, and instead make them
effective and responsive to the people whose lives they affect? It is
a
challenge that should not be beyond the best minds in the fields of
political science and public administration.
I'd like to believe that this was possible, because if it isn't, we're in serious trouble. We cannot expect national governments to set aside parochial interests, especially when this entails accepting a responsibility that would, for the richer nations, inevitably lead to a drastic redistribution of wealth to poorer nations and hence a sudden and sharp reduction in, at least, economic living standards (if not necessarily well-being). But as John Ralston Saul has so eloquently argued, larger organizations and institutions, whether public or private, are almost always, and inherently, less efficient, less agile, more resistant to change, more hierarchic, and less transparent than smaller organizations. So the challenge is to achieve the best of both worlds, having organizations of global scope and authority and responsibility, but broken up into sufficiently small, autonomous and dynamic units that they are sensitive, resilient, responsible and responsive to the people and communities they serve. We can only hope that "the best minds in the fields of political science and public administration", wherever they are, are up to the task. |
The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: