Full Version: Capitalism and health
I ran across an interesting article today, the title of which is geared towards the conclusion of the article but not this debate question: The case for neglecting global warming
Link to the original article: So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You
Of course, many people think our industrialization is bad for our health.
Capitalism Makes You Sick
Capitalism Gone Mad: It's Harmful to Your Health
Question to be debated:
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
QUOTE
In the July 30 edition of The New York Times, Gina Kolata reports on recent research findings on the health of modern citizens of industrialized countries. You might expect that this research reveals us denizens of early 21st-century capitalist economies to be staggeringly unhealthy -- our physiques so obese and flabby, our arteries so clogged with cholesterol, our lungs so inundated with pollutants and our brains and spirits so burdened with stress that we are aging faster and suffering more than ever before.
In fact, the opposite is true. The great majority of us today enjoy unprecedented good health. According to The Times: New research from around the world has begun to reveal a picture of humans today that is so different from what it was in the past that scientists say they are startled. Over the past 100 years, says one researcher, Robert W. Fogel of the University of Chicago, humans in the industrialized world have undergone "a form of evolution that is unique not only to humankind, but unique among the 7,000 or so generations of humans who have ever inhabited the earth.
<snip>
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements; it produces the soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and detergents that we use every day to cleanse our bodies and living spaces of bacteria and other dirt. And by continually substituting machines for human labor, capitalism progressively makes our work less backbreaking and less perilous.
These gains are significant and real. And they are continuing; no one knows where, or even if, they will stop.
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg.
In fact, the opposite is true. The great majority of us today enjoy unprecedented good health. According to The Times: New research from around the world has begun to reveal a picture of humans today that is so different from what it was in the past that scientists say they are startled. Over the past 100 years, says one researcher, Robert W. Fogel of the University of Chicago, humans in the industrialized world have undergone "a form of evolution that is unique not only to humankind, but unique among the 7,000 or so generations of humans who have ever inhabited the earth.
<snip>
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements; it produces the soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and detergents that we use every day to cleanse our bodies and living spaces of bacteria and other dirt. And by continually substituting machines for human labor, capitalism progressively makes our work less backbreaking and less perilous.
These gains are significant and real. And they are continuing; no one knows where, or even if, they will stop.
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg.
Link to the original article: So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You
QUOTE
The biggest surprise emerging from the new studies is that many chronic ailments like heart disease, lung disease and arthritis are occurring an average of 10 to 25 years later than they used to. There is also less disability among older people today, according to a federal study that directly measures it. And that is not just because medical treatments like cataract surgery keep people functioning. Human bodies are simply not breaking down the way they did before.
Even the human mind seems improved. The average I.Q. has been increasing for decades, and at least one study found that a person’s chances of having dementia in old age appeared to have fallen in recent years.
<snip>
People even look different today. American men, for example, are nearly three inches taller than they were 100 years ago and about 50 pounds heavier.
Even the human mind seems improved. The average I.Q. has been increasing for decades, and at least one study found that a person’s chances of having dementia in old age appeared to have fallen in recent years.
<snip>
People even look different today. American men, for example, are nearly three inches taller than they were 100 years ago and about 50 pounds heavier.
Of course, many people think our industrialization is bad for our health.
Capitalism Makes You Sick
QUOTE
Neither political nor popular discussions about ‘health’ tend to incorporate the everyday threats to our health and safety that we face simply by working for a living. Yet work routinely kills workers and members of the public on a scale that is almost incomprehensible. In May 2002, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimated that two million workers die each year through work-related ‘accidents’ and diseases - a figure which it said is ‘just the tip of the iceberg’; for each of these fatalities (5, 000 every day), there are another 500-2, 000 injuries; and for every fatal work-related disease there are about 100 other illnesses causing absence from work.(i)
Capitalism Gone Mad: It's Harmful to Your Health
Question to be debated:
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
In contrast to what? Current non-capitalist societies? Earlier societies, whether capitalist or not? A non-capitalist utopian fantasy?
Okay, my answer is it creates a healthier society compared to current non-capitalist societies, a healthier society compared to earlier societies, and is absolutely deadly, i.e. very, very unhealthy, in comparison to non-capitalist utopian fantasy societies.
In contrast to what? Current non-capitalist societies? Earlier societies, whether capitalist or not? A non-capitalist utopian fantasy?
Okay, my answer is it creates a healthier society compared to current non-capitalist societies, a healthier society compared to earlier societies, and is absolutely deadly, i.e. very, very unhealthy, in comparison to non-capitalist utopian fantasy societies.
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
I don't know that it's capitalism as much as it is industrialization and a society that has a generous social safety net. In 2000, the World Health Organisation released a study on the healthy life expectancy of global populations. The US came in 24th, Japan and many European countries were ahead of us.
The placement of the US was a bit of a surprise, here's the conclusions they drew:
That first point is particularly interesting. It seems the best way to have a high level of health in a population is to have a capitalist society that is tempered by generous social welfare.
I think there are trade-offs. Certainly in an industrialized capitalist society, more people are becoming obese; diabetes and other related illnesses are more prevelant, more people die from heart disease and various cancers. On the other hand, what the article you source says is also true - in general we are far healthier than we were before. We live longer, have better health care, and are less likely to die from infectious diseases.
My main problem with the article is that his conclusion is not based on any provable chain of causation. Society is an incredibly complex system, and one can't pick capitalism out and conclude it is the defining factor. Advances in medical science have played a big role, as have many other factors. It's shoddy logic, really. If the obesity rate and the divorce rate have both risen in the last 50 years, it would be shoddy logic to conclude that obesity causes divorce, for example.
As for his leap regarding global warming... it's extremely short-sighted thinking. While the combination of market economies, social welfare programs, health care advancements, and industrialization may continue to make us healthier in many important ways, it's also entirely possible that ignoring global climate changes could reverse some or all of those gains. If Canada were slowly building up their border with our nation, and massing huge numbers of troops there, and pointing more and more missiles towards us, we would still conitnue to get healthier by ignoring it, and spending our money elsewhere besides defense. We could turn out to be sorry for that down the road, however.
I don't know that it's capitalism as much as it is industrialization and a society that has a generous social safety net. In 2000, the World Health Organisation released a study on the healthy life expectancy of global populations. The US came in 24th, Japan and many European countries were ahead of us.
The placement of the US was a bit of a surprise, here's the conclusions they drew:
QUOTE
The WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks relatively low among wealthy nations. These reasons include:
In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.
In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.
That first point is particularly interesting. It seems the best way to have a high level of health in a population is to have a capitalist society that is tempered by generous social welfare.
I think there are trade-offs. Certainly in an industrialized capitalist society, more people are becoming obese; diabetes and other related illnesses are more prevelant, more people die from heart disease and various cancers. On the other hand, what the article you source says is also true - in general we are far healthier than we were before. We live longer, have better health care, and are less likely to die from infectious diseases.
My main problem with the article is that his conclusion is not based on any provable chain of causation. Society is an incredibly complex system, and one can't pick capitalism out and conclude it is the defining factor. Advances in medical science have played a big role, as have many other factors. It's shoddy logic, really. If the obesity rate and the divorce rate have both risen in the last 50 years, it would be shoddy logic to conclude that obesity causes divorce, for example.
As for his leap regarding global warming... it's extremely short-sighted thinking. While the combination of market economies, social welfare programs, health care advancements, and industrialization may continue to make us healthier in many important ways, it's also entirely possible that ignoring global climate changes could reverse some or all of those gains. If Canada were slowly building up their border with our nation, and massing huge numbers of troops there, and pointing more and more missiles towards us, we would still conitnue to get healthier by ignoring it, and spending our money elsewhere besides defense. We could turn out to be sorry for that down the road, however.
Capitalism alone won't make a Society healthier. But it can certainly help. The idea behind the Health Insurance company is that the customers pay premiums into a pool fund to be used whenever 1 or 2 members gets extremely ill. This is called "risk distribution" and should not be used for routine things like dental checkups and arthritis medicine.
What has happened though is that the cost for healthcare, and health insurance has gone up faster than inflation in America. When the Government created programs like Medicare, 2 things happened. First, the Senior Citizens did not have to pay for private Health Insurance, thus forcing premium hikes for the younger workers. Second, Government created excessive amounts of bureacracies that create large amounts of paperwork for the doctors and makes it more expensive and time consuming for pharmeceudical companies to get new medicines on the market. Also, excessive malpractice lawsuits have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance for the doctors.
Poor folks who can't afford insurance should get a social safety net in case they get sick. But the Government has to clean up a great deal of its excessive regulations and give the Free Market a chance to make Healthcare more affordable for America.
What has happened though is that the cost for healthcare, and health insurance has gone up faster than inflation in America. When the Government created programs like Medicare, 2 things happened. First, the Senior Citizens did not have to pay for private Health Insurance, thus forcing premium hikes for the younger workers. Second, Government created excessive amounts of bureacracies that create large amounts of paperwork for the doctors and makes it more expensive and time consuming for pharmeceudical companies to get new medicines on the market. Also, excessive malpractice lawsuits have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance for the doctors.
Poor folks who can't afford insurance should get a social safety net in case they get sick. But the Government has to clean up a great deal of its excessive regulations and give the Free Market a chance to make Healthcare more affordable for America.
There's another question in this:
If the US is #24 in the healthy society rating, what makes the other 23 countries more capitalistic than the United States?
You know, assuming that capitalism means a healthier society.
I think such a study will bring out the oversimplicity of the original question.
If the US is #24 in the healthy society rating, what makes the other 23 countries more capitalistic than the United States?
You know, assuming that capitalism means a healthier society.
I think such a study will bring out the oversimplicity of the original question.
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
The answer is that capitalism most certainly creates a healthier society. In this is accomplished simply by the progress that human reason and innovation is able to accomplish only in a capitalist society where all the powers of the individual are utilized and are not held back by government. Advances in science and technology, particularly medicine can be attributed directly to individual liberty and entrepreneurial spirit. I give way to Hayek when he said:
In a stationary society there will be about as many who will be descending as there will be those rising. In order that the gret majority should in their individual lives participate in the advance, it is necessary that it proceed at a considerable speed. There can therefor be little doubt that Adam Smith was right when he said: "It is in the progressive state, while society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of people, seems to be happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is really the cheerful and hearty state of all the different orders of society. The stationary is dull; the declining is melancholy."
It is one of the most characteristic facts of a progressive society that in it most things which individuals strive for can be obtained only through further progress. This follows from the necessary character of the progress: new knowledge and its benefits can spread only gradually, and the ambitions of the many will always be determined by what is as yet accessible only to the few. It is misleading to think of those new possibilities as if they were, from the beginning, a common possession of society which its members could deliberately share; they become a common possession of society only through that slow process by which the achievements of the few are made available to the many. This is often obscured by the exaggerated attention usually given to a few conspicuous major steps in the development. But, more often than not, major discoveries merely open new vistas, and long further efforts are necessary before the new knowledge that has sprung up somewhere can be put to general use. It will have to pass through a long course of adaptation, selection, combination, and improvement before full use can be made of it. This means that there will always be people who already benefit from the new achievements that have not yet reached others.
As the United States leads the charge as one of the most capitalist countries on Earth, it is likewise a leader in innovation and invention. Thats why we are the ones who discover important new drugs and procedures in the field of medicine and those practices and drugs are copied around the world. When a government restrains what the individual can accomplish, it in effect restrains what society can accomplish.
The answer is that capitalism most certainly creates a healthier society. In this is accomplished simply by the progress that human reason and innovation is able to accomplish only in a capitalist society where all the powers of the individual are utilized and are not held back by government. Advances in science and technology, particularly medicine can be attributed directly to individual liberty and entrepreneurial spirit. I give way to Hayek when he said:
QUOTE
In a stationary society there will be about as many who will be descending as there will be those rising. In order that the gret majority should in their individual lives participate in the advance, it is necessary that it proceed at a considerable speed. There can therefor be little doubt that Adam Smith was right when he said: "It is in the progressive state, while society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of people, seems to be happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is really the cheerful and hearty state of all the different orders of society. The stationary is dull; the declining is melancholy."
It is one of the most characteristic facts of a progressive society that in it most things which individuals strive for can be obtained only through further progress. This follows from the necessary character of the progress: new knowledge and its benefits can spread only gradually, and the ambitions of the many will always be determined by what is as yet accessible only to the few. It is misleading to think of those new possibilities as if they were, from the beginning, a common possession of society which its members could deliberately share; they become a common possession of society only through that slow process by which the achievements of the few are made available to the many. This is often obscured by the exaggerated attention usually given to a few conspicuous major steps in the development. But, more often than not, major discoveries merely open new vistas, and long further efforts are necessary before the new knowledge that has sprung up somewhere can be put to general use. It will have to pass through a long course of adaptation, selection, combination, and improvement before full use can be made of it. This means that there will always be people who already benefit from the new achievements that have not yet reached others.
As the United States leads the charge as one of the most capitalist countries on Earth, it is likewise a leader in innovation and invention. Thats why we are the ones who discover important new drugs and procedures in the field of medicine and those practices and drugs are copied around the world. When a government restrains what the individual can accomplish, it in effect restrains what society can accomplish.
I would have to agree with quarkhead that the whole question of human health, economics, and politics is much too complex to reduce to simple statements. With that in mind, we can point out at least one obvious thing.
Poverty is bad for your health.
You don't have to be a doctor (or even play one on TV) to know that clean water, enough food, vaccination, and other things that require a certain level of prosperity are good for your health.
So far, so good. Certainly, technological progress and a strong economy, in modern liberal societies, are good for health in general. (There may be special health problems that show up to a greater degree in industrialized societies. The most obvious one in the United States is the enormous growth of diabetes. This is an extremely serious problem, but the solution is not to de-industrialize or to retard technology in any way.)
What I am trying to say is that history shows that the best economic system for human health is "capitalism with a human face." The kind of capitalism where captains of industry are smart enough to realize that treating their workers with decency is good for business. What is clearly not good for human health, experience reveals, is absolutely unregulated dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Link
So, yes, sane capitalism creates a healthier society.
(As a side issue, I find the leap of logic in the article by Boudreaux from "capitalism has been, in the long run, good for human health" [a statement with which I would agree] to "we should ignore global warming" to be a bizarre non sequitur. Frankly, I find it typical of a particular type of extreme "free market" advocate who seems to labor under the delusion that capitalism can do no wrong; an attitude which reminds me of nothing so much as absolutely doctrinaire Marxists.)
Poverty is bad for your health.
You don't have to be a doctor (or even play one on TV) to know that clean water, enough food, vaccination, and other things that require a certain level of prosperity are good for your health.
So far, so good. Certainly, technological progress and a strong economy, in modern liberal societies, are good for health in general. (There may be special health problems that show up to a greater degree in industrialized societies. The most obvious one in the United States is the enormous growth of diabetes. This is an extremely serious problem, but the solution is not to de-industrialize or to retard technology in any way.)
What I am trying to say is that history shows that the best economic system for human health is "capitalism with a human face." The kind of capitalism where captains of industry are smart enough to realize that treating their workers with decency is good for business. What is clearly not good for human health, experience reveals, is absolutely unregulated dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Link
QUOTE
Poverty walked hand in hand with disease and death in industrial Britain during the first half of the nineteenth century.
Atrocious working conditions, unbelievably long hours of labour, poor diet, overcrowded slum housing and totally inadequate sanitary arrangements made poor health and early death inevitable facts of life for the lower classes.
Atrocious working conditions, unbelievably long hours of labour, poor diet, overcrowded slum housing and totally inadequate sanitary arrangements made poor health and early death inevitable facts of life for the lower classes.
So, yes, sane capitalism creates a healthier society.
(As a side issue, I find the leap of logic in the article by Boudreaux from "capitalism has been, in the long run, good for human health" [a statement with which I would agree] to "we should ignore global warming" to be a bizarre non sequitur. Frankly, I find it typical of a particular type of extreme "free market" advocate who seems to labor under the delusion that capitalism can do no wrong; an attitude which reminds me of nothing so much as absolutely doctrinaire Marxists.)
QUOTE
lederuvdapac
The answer is that capitalism most certainly creates a healthier society. In this is accomplished simply by the progress that human reason and innovation is able to accomplish only in a capitalist society where all the powers of the individual are utilized and are not held back by government.
The answer is that capitalism most certainly creates a healthier society. In this is accomplished simply by the progress that human reason and innovation is able to accomplish only in a capitalist society where all the powers of the individual are utilized and are not held back by government.
That's not true. The Nazi's achieved very large stride's in technology in a very short amount of time. A better relation would be to say that it is accomplished simply by what you percieve to be the most ideal society that wouldn't be probable in many other types of societies.
QUOTE
quarkhead
I don't know that it's capitalism as much as it is industrialization and a society that has a generous social safety net. In 2000, the World Health Organisation released a study on the healthy life expectancy of global populations. The US came in 24th, Japan and many European countries were ahead of us.
I don't know that it's capitalism as much as it is industrialization and a society that has a generous social safety net. In 2000, the World Health Organisation released a study on the healthy life expectancy of global populations. The US came in 24th, Japan and many European countries were ahead of us.
Assuming that the reason these nations lead the US is because of a generous "safety net" (although I content that's not really always an accurate description) - oh well. I prefer a system that insures short term recovery when your chips are down but not long term reliance. Bacially a real SAFETY NET to catch you when you fall so you can stand up on your own - not stand you up. Given un-abled bodies are a different case. Even Corky made a good living.
There's some homeless people that like to hangout around the park across the street from the county courthouse. Right down the street (literally around 200 feet away) there's three fast food restaurants, usually at least one or two of them have in big letters on their sign - HELP WANTED - ALL POSITIONS.
However I do believe it's more of the fact that health insurance is not very affordable in the US.
QUOTE
Victoria Silverwolf
So, yes, sane capitalism creates a healthier society.
(As a side issue, I find the leap of logic in the article by Boudreaux from "capitalism has been, in the long run, good for human health" [a statement with which I would agree] to "we should ignore global warming" to be a bizarre non sequitur. Frankly, I find it typical of a particular type of extreme "free market" advocate who seems to labor under the delusion that capitalism can do no wrong; an attitude which reminds me of nothing so much as absolutely doctrinaire Marxists.)
So, yes, sane capitalism creates a healthier society.
(As a side issue, I find the leap of logic in the article by Boudreaux from "capitalism has been, in the long run, good for human health" [a statement with which I would agree] to "we should ignore global warming" to be a bizarre non sequitur. Frankly, I find it typical of a particular type of extreme "free market" advocate who seems to labor under the delusion that capitalism can do no wrong; an attitude which reminds me of nothing so much as absolutely doctrinaire Marxists.)
That pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
QUOTE(Vampiel)
That's not true. The Nazi's achieved very large stride's in technology in a very short amount of time. A better relation would be to say that it is accomplished simply by what you percieve to be the most ideal society that wouldn't be probable in many other types of societies.
I have no doubt that if we completely restructured our economy toward a social goal such as health care or social justice that there would be a short term noticeable benefit from such actions for the poor classes. But when it comes to long term viable growth in the economic sphere, in no way could the Nazis match the economies of the capitalist nations, especially without war. Furthermore, due to the relative short length of the Nazi regime compared with the capitalist Western democracies, it is a poor comparison since the long term effects of their economic system will not be known. A better comparison would be economic systems that have been used and failed such as those in the USSR, former USSR republics, Cuba, and Latin American regimes. In the long run, their anti-capitalist economies failed the populace because the economy was just not sustainable and unable to produce growth. The only economies which have been able to survive for long periods of time are those that were more open than not. Where would China be today if market reforms were not introduced following the reign of Mao? Probably in a state of chaos and anarchy that would only be contained through government force and violence.
There is no doubt that the Nazis accomplished a lot in the way of technology in that short period of time but I still contend that without war and over a long period of competition with foreign goods that their economy would have went the way of other authoritarian systems.
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
Countries which have government provided health care, like those in Europe, simply have healthier populations. Whether the lives saved/extended are worth cost in taxes is arguable, though I would assert that they are...and given how screwed up our private system is, we'll its possible that going public might even make service cheaper (that is it might cost less out taxes then it is currently costing out of wallets/banks).
Tempered Capitalism is in my opinion the best way for nations to go.
Vampiel:
I don't think free healthcare makes a society lazy like Welfare does. Granted having it cost money increases the need for someone to have money...but really it isnt that big of an expense when compared to things like housing and food.
Countries which have government provided health care, like those in Europe, simply have healthier populations. Whether the lives saved/extended are worth cost in taxes is arguable, though I would assert that they are...and given how screwed up our private system is, we'll its possible that going public might even make service cheaper (that is it might cost less out taxes then it is currently costing out of wallets/banks).
Tempered Capitalism is in my opinion the best way for nations to go.
Vampiel:
I don't think free healthcare makes a society lazy like Welfare does. Granted having it cost money increases the need for someone to have money...but really it isnt that big of an expense when compared to things like housing and food.
Personally, I don't believe that capitalism combined with democracy is very "healthy" for the populace. See my signature below for Lincoln's apprehensions concerning the same topic. When economic power becomes too centralized it is a threat to a democratic government simply because humans are not perfect. Bribes, special interest and all of the other evils of our present government become possible. It is too easy to switch from a government of, for and by the people to one of, for and by the corporations. I'm not saying that corporate power is necessarily bad, mind you! (the list of great achievements of large corporations is long)
However, when corporate will is substituted for the People's will, then we have a problem.
Certainly we live longer now than ever before due to our technological achievements. Many of those achievements could ONLY have been realized and brought to the populace through the machinations of big business....
But this is just a numbers game!
We make more food, more people survive long enough to breed and more children survive into adulthood. Our population expands geometrically and so the numbers of people who die and/or suffer DUE to our technology seems paltry.
In the foreground we have a population that is quite literally addicted to the technology that has created it. We have created a huge population of people who are physically (and genetically) unprepared for a host of disasters that Mother Nature can and will unleash upon us. Our only solace is that Technology will save us where our immune systems and survival skills cannot.
Do we live longer?? Sure we do.... But are we a healthy population? I don't think so.
However, when corporate will is substituted for the People's will, then we have a problem.
Certainly we live longer now than ever before due to our technological achievements. Many of those achievements could ONLY have been realized and brought to the populace through the machinations of big business....
But this is just a numbers game!
We make more food, more people survive long enough to breed and more children survive into adulthood. Our population expands geometrically and so the numbers of people who die and/or suffer DUE to our technology seems paltry.
In the foreground we have a population that is quite literally addicted to the technology that has created it. We have created a huge population of people who are physically (and genetically) unprepared for a host of disasters that Mother Nature can and will unleash upon us. Our only solace is that Technology will save us where our immune systems and survival skills cannot.
Do we live longer?? Sure we do.... But are we a healthy population? I don't think so.
Does capitalism create a healthier society or a less healthy society?
I think that the advances in healthcare that we have seen in the last 100 (or so) years have been primarily down to technological development and increased understanding of how the human body works.
Capitalism within a liberal democracy generally combines people's freedom to research and innovate with the opportunity to materially improve their own well-being if they can develop something of use to the rest of their society. Under these conditions, medical technology will quickly improve and in theory raise life expectancies.
In a 'purely' capitalist society, those able to afford it would be able to achieve the very best available healthcare and so have the longest life-expectancy. If healthcare were a perfect market, then competition etc would gradually bring prices down,so allowing medical advances to become available to everyone and raising the life expectancy of the population as a whole.
However, healthcare is generally not a perfect market, as information is one-sided (i.e. the healthcare provider - your doctor or the hospital knows a lot more about your health needs than you do) and is weighed heavily in favour of the provider. As a result, healthcare costs in a free market generally do not decrease that quickly at all, as providers face little compulsion to lower prices. When this happens, health inequality throughout society tends to increase.
Many western countries adopt some form of socialised healthcare, to try and get round this problem. For example, in the UK, the government runs most of the hospitals and healthcare is paid for through taxation of the population and provided free at the point of service. This reduces health inequality, but increases inefficiency (and as the British are living longer, they cost of the NHS is set to rise in the future, as old people use more health resources).
So, I would say that, in terms of a society - some form of public provision is health care is necessary to avoid large inequalities in life expectancy, at the expense of technological development and efficiency.
However, if I were rich, then I would be better off living in a society without any form of public provision of health, as I would have access to the latest in healthcare advances and would not be subsidising the healthcare of other people.
Incidentally, the WHO website lists life expectancies and it is interesting that, in general, Western countries with strong public provision of healthcare have longer life expectancies than Americans. Which would suggest that technological development ALONE is not the answer to a long and healthy life!
I think that the advances in healthcare that we have seen in the last 100 (or so) years have been primarily down to technological development and increased understanding of how the human body works.
Capitalism within a liberal democracy generally combines people's freedom to research and innovate with the opportunity to materially improve their own well-being if they can develop something of use to the rest of their society. Under these conditions, medical technology will quickly improve and in theory raise life expectancies.
In a 'purely' capitalist society, those able to afford it would be able to achieve the very best available healthcare and so have the longest life-expectancy. If healthcare were a perfect market, then competition etc would gradually bring prices down,so allowing medical advances to become available to everyone and raising the life expectancy of the population as a whole.
However, healthcare is generally not a perfect market, as information is one-sided (i.e. the healthcare provider - your doctor or the hospital knows a lot more about your health needs than you do) and is weighed heavily in favour of the provider. As a result, healthcare costs in a free market generally do not decrease that quickly at all, as providers face little compulsion to lower prices. When this happens, health inequality throughout society tends to increase.
Many western countries adopt some form of socialised healthcare, to try and get round this problem. For example, in the UK, the government runs most of the hospitals and healthcare is paid for through taxation of the population and provided free at the point of service. This reduces health inequality, but increases inefficiency (and as the British are living longer, they cost of the NHS is set to rise in the future, as old people use more health resources).
So, I would say that, in terms of a society - some form of public provision is health care is necessary to avoid large inequalities in life expectancy, at the expense of technological development and efficiency.
However, if I were rich, then I would be better off living in a society without any form of public provision of health, as I would have access to the latest in healthcare advances and would not be subsidising the healthcare of other people.
Incidentally, the WHO website lists life expectancies and it is interesting that, in general, Western countries with strong public provision of healthcare have longer life expectancies than Americans. Which would suggest that technological development ALONE is not the answer to a long and healthy life!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.