posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:57 AM
THis comes up every once in a while. I will paste my earlier response to it, as I truly believe it is relevant.
Yeah, I've seen this before. I see some serious holes in it. I am not socialist, and the country I live in is not socialist (though many people
ignorant think it is). It has a socialized medical care system though, which is multipayer (and is only available to the employed). Though the economy
is capitalist, there still is some socialist values that run underneath the surface.
I don't know if this was a true story, but if it was, I am willing to bet it was in the US. That means the kids were American and were infused with
American ideals and values. That is what changes the outcome.
In our american culture, it is "each man for himself", so it follows that each kid will only be concerned about themself as if they were an island,
and come up with this result. The mistake is in the assumption that this egoism is an innate human dominant attribute. It is a cultural value that is
conditioned and comes from education.
In France, you do the same test, guess what you get?
The kids who worked hard and got a lower result put pressure on the ones that didn't to pick up the effort.
The other kids, all conditioned with the value of respecting the pack and peer pressure as vital, are strongly influenced by the threat of being
ostracized by the others, fearing it, work harder for their peers acceptance.
The overall grade goes up. This is why the french have the funny way of being extremely productive, despite that they work less hours on the whole.
That time off is to make the social ties stronger which are the "real authority".
American kids are taught not to follow the crowd, not to pressure each other, but remain focused either on themself, or the teacher. Peer pressure is
considered a bad thing, and jumping off cliffs seems to be a common worry when they get together......
That is why I think that a socialized program may work well in one place, with a certain culture, but would be a terrible fail in another, depending
upon the cultural values. Only in a few generations, if we could change the values through time, could that sort of thing work in the US. We are too
selfish, and too...independant, to be able to work together in such a way and be constructive.
I thought the other day- How can anyone think of this along the lines only of "I am paying for someone elses care"?
When you pay your insurance company, do you see it that way? Even knowing your insurance company exists for profit, so you are paying into more than
just medical care.
Why do so many americans talk as if they wil not be recieving care?- apparently they are without need of any- only others are. None of you are having
kids, and your wives needing to be hospitalized for that? How can you be sure you and your family members will never need to go to the doctor?
I find it confusing. Where I am, when I pay my taxes, I am paying right now for care I have had and care I will have. I had children in the hospital
and paid nothing, so I pay that back. The women in there now paid for me when I had mine. My daughter is away at college, had an accident and needed
emergency surgery. They took her in and did it, even though we could not be found at that time and all she had was her ID card and social security
card. I pay each month so that things like that can be taken care of.
I just don't get how peope can be fine with paying outragious insurance payments, (with deductables and no freedom to choose your doctor yourself)
and yet see paying a nationalized medical care system as paying for someone else only?