The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[sheeplady]

I can second your praise of the German health care system. It works very well here even if many people complain about it. It is much worse and much more expensive elsewhere in the world. My wife got sick in Las Vegas years ago and we had to go to an emergency room in one of the local hospitals. The first question that we were asked was how were we going to pay the bill, credit card, or cash.

Our experience with the German Healthcare system was very good. My husband saw an actual orthopedic doctor, someone you wouldn't see in an urgent care in the US. He got a very high quality boot for his foot (the orthopedic surgeon we saw in the US was stunned by how great it was).

We were a bit panicked in the beginning because they said without being Germans or from Europe we would pay cash and it would be very very expensive. We had about 300 euro between us and a card that limited us to withdrawing about 250 euro a day. When the nurse who spoke English (we were in a part of Germany where not many English speaking people go) told us the price, we laughed, bease we were thiking US "very expensive" and figured it wold be a thousand dollars or more. We had enough money on us to cover the urgent care, the boot, crutches, the taxi cab, and still had 100 euro left.

We were very happy with our experience, and were all done in less than 3 hours- getting from the hotel to the urgent care, waiting time, xrays, seeing the doctor, figuring out how to pay, traveling to the medical supply store across town, getting the boot and crutches, figuring out how to pay, and getting back to the hotel.

I found the Germans to be some of the nicest people.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Here's an out there idea... How about we restructure the current "Profit over People" philosophy to include a somewhat fair human condition factor? Like allow philosophers and ethics professionals to reintegrate into government and the legal system.

With this caveat: any "ethics professional" working in conjunction with a self governing profession must be a member of said profession in addition to any ethical education as part of their background. One of the lines of demarcation between an occupation and a profession is self governance: and as the song says, "Gotta pay your dues if you want to sing the blues." Anyone who thinks that attorneys, for example, are of one mind and willing to protect their own at all costs really does not know attorneys. And that's increasingly true of physicians as well.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Our experience with the German Healthcare system was very good. My husband saw an actual orthopedic doctor, someone you wouldn't see in an urgent care in the US. He got a very high quality boot for his foot (the orthopedic surgeon we saw in the US was stunned by how great it was).

We were a bit panicked in the beginning because they said without being Germans or from Europe we would pay cash and it would be very very expensive. We had about 300 euro between us and a card that limited us to withdrawing about 250 euro a day. When the nurse who spoke English (we were in a part of Germany where not many English speaking people go) told us the price, we laughed, bease we were thiking US "very expensive" and figured it wold be a thousand dollars or more. We had enough money on us to cover the urgent care, the boot, crutches, the taxi cab, and still had 100 euro left.

We were very happy with our experience, and were all done in less than 3 hours- getting from the hotel to the urgent care, waiting time, xrays, seeing the doctor, figuring out how to pay, traveling to the medical supply store across town, getting the boot and crutches, figuring out how to pay, and getting back to the hotel.

I found the Germans to be some of the nicest people.

I agree on the friendliness of the German people and affordability, but our experience might offer a caveat... although I admit that it occurred 31 years ago.

My wife (herself a masters- prepared NP) broke her foot after a fall on our honeymoon while touring a castle in Nuremburg. The ER treatment was excellent, but our hospital physician wanted my wife to undergo an open reduction on her foot and then spend six weeks in Germany recovering. When we balked over the fact that we were on a 2 week honeymoon, Plan B was that she wear a split cast on her foot and remain totally immobile. As soon as we got back to our hotel room, she ripped off the cast and sent me to a drug store to get an Ace Wrap bandage: the next day we were in Garmisch and made it to the top of the Zugspitze. The honeymoon went on, with limited impairments. We got home to the US and sought a consult with a US orthopedist, who told my wife that he would have done the same thing.

So, while we found German healthcare to e excellent in terms of affordability and the professionalism of the care providers, the treatment plan- at that time- seemed a bit too conservative if not antiquated: no one in the US would have treated a simple fracture with open reduction surgery at that time. I hope that aspect has changed.

 

[philosophygirl78]

With this caveat: any "ethics professional" working in conjunction with a self governing profession must be a member of said profession in addition to any ethical education as part of their background. One of the lines of demarcation between an occupation and a profession is self governance: and as the song says, "Gotta pay your dues if you want to sing the blues." Anyone who thinks that attorneys, for example, are of one mind and willing to protect their own at all costs really does not know attorneys. And that's increasingly true of physicians as well.

I agree with alot of what you said, but when it comes to Ethics and Philosophy professionals, I think what is needed is a base understanding of let's say medicine, and not necessarily to know how to practice medicine. In this regard what is missing are professionals in government and law whose main job and concern is to look for the moral and ethical regard in functions. Without this 'check and balance' if you will, it is very clear what the outcome is and will continue to be.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You've got to change the moral underpinnings of the entire system before that'll happen, and you really can't do that without bringing the whole system down. It's like trying to move a deteriorated house off a rotting foundation.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Just what are " philosophy professionals" & do they hold the monopoly on morals & ethics ? Also, would these "philosophy professionals" be able to deliberate within some sort of established neutral charter & not be influenced by their own political inclinations ?
Such a body could only act in an advisory capacity & so would have no descision making or political power, so what would be their function other than informing the descision makers what they already know but who couldn't care less. Would it not just be a political communications con trick, similar to intergrating ecologists into the government & then completely ignoring their advice as it interferes with the prerogatives & ambitions of big buisness !

 

[MikeKardec]

Here's an out there idea... How about we restructure the current "Profit over People" philosophy to include a somewhat fair human condition factor? Like allow philosophers and ethics professionals to reintegrate into government and the legal system.

In my limited experience I've rarely seen this in big business in the early stages of setting up a business, excellence seems to be the main goal at that point and hiring tends to search for the best employee at an artful balance to cost. It's later when belt tightening occurs and cuts are made that idiots are hired and cheaper employees retained and everyone gets squeezed regarding productivity. All extra capacity disappears and people start being treated like interchangeable cogs in a machine ... one that is sputtering and floundering. Unfortunately, the machine is usually so big at this point that the people making the decisions don't really notice and are only remotely connected to the actual excellence of output. I've been through three mergers (thankfully as a person who worked with but not for the merging corporation) and each time the intention was that post-merge the company would be no larger than just one of the merging parties. It was always ugly ... though there were improvements made, stupid policies removed, and very needed efficiencies discovered. Oddly, many terminated employees were always hired back later. That's not so positive, they were traumatized then rehired and I can't believe their moral hasn't been damaged. In the grander scheme of things this isn't all as anti Karma as it could be, the corporation feeds 70% of it's profits to a public policy non profit so making money has a slightly different tinge. People do get rich there but they do a lot of good too.

I've encountered the notion overseas (more than once, and among some well-read current events people) that we have no social welfare programs in the U.S. Zero.

Working abroad I have been exposed to that attitude on a myriad of subjects! Our press reports on some issue in either an appropriately critical or outright anti American manner and the foreign press then exaggerates it even further. Many people in other countries have been trained over the years to see everything relating to the US in a negative light and accept that vision uncritically. Somehow it's a great sin if the US does it but no one care if China or India has the same problem (where you can bet it's worse because there are more people). The press in Britain still tends to blame the US for slavery as if we invented that gift from the British Empire and then didn't have to fight a devastating war over it ... and like it wasn't over a century ago! When they criticize us about foreign policy (not that they are always wrong) it's a case of the locomotive on which the sun never set calling the tea kettle black!

Another way of asking this is, as an American, I see non-Americans coming to the US to avail themselves of American medical facilities because they don't have or don't have access to these in their country. But since I don't live abroad, I don't know if the same happen in reverse - do many Americans go abroad for treatments not available or ones they can't get access to in the US?

I'm guessing that we have some advantages and so do other countries. It's wonderful that some people can manage through wealth or a helpful non profit or generous relatives to go where they need to find a cure. I know people who've gone to Canada, Mexico and Eastern Europe (Phage treatment) for procedures impossible to get here.

So, while we found German healthcare to be excellent in terms of affordability and the professionalism of the care providers, the treatment plan- at that time- seemed a bit too conservative if not antiquated: no one in the US would have treated a simple fracture with open reduction surgery at that time. I hope that aspect has changed.

Sometimes it's called for and sometimes the German way is to invent "ingenious solutions to nonexistent problems" ... in my experience they seem less inclined to do so today but I work with a lot of Americanized or Internationalized Germans so it might be just them. German experts love to be expert! Regardless, if you are sick in Europe, get to Germany! If I could snap my fingers and get myself there from anywhere in the world I'd do it, there are so few places where actual excellence is as uniformly appreciated.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Just what are " philosophy professionals" & do they hold the monopoly on morals & ethics ? Also, would these "philosophy professionals" be able to deliberate within some sort of established neutral charter & not be influenced by their own political inclinations ?

Such a body could only act in an advisory capacity & so would have no descision making or political power, so what would be their function other than informing the descision makers what they already know but who couldn't care less. Would it not just be a political communications con trick, similar to intergrating ecologists into the government & then completely ignoring their advice as it interferes with the prerogatives & ambitions of big buisness !

Philosophy professionals are scholars who have studied the baseline of logic and reason along with the varying moral varieties and agendas of the human condition. They have in depth knowledge of the denotation of language and how that language is used to navigate and create social constructs.

Could they remain unbias? Absolutely. That is the very nature of their thinking.... with an end result into the preservation of humanity that is.
Guidance and perspective would be their very function... One, that too often, is not even considered (potential ramifications, side effects, etc) in modern day government. The removal of this branch of government (which yes, has existed in the past, though maybe not in america after the founding fathers), is the very reason why big business and corruption rules at the top.

 

[sheeplady]

I agree on the friendliness of the German people and affordability, but our experience might offer a caveat... although I admit that it occurred 31 years ago.

My wife (herself a masters- prepared NP) broke her foot after a fall on our honeymoon while touring a castle in Nuremburg. The ER treatment was excellent, but our hospital physician wanted my wife to undergo an open reduction on her foot and then spend six weeks in Germany recovering. When we balked over the fact that we were on a 2 week honeymoon, Plan B was that she wear a split cast on her foot and remain totally immobile. As soon as we got back to our hotel room, she ripped off the cast and sent me to a drug store to get an Ace Wrap bandage: the next day we were in Garmisch and made it to the top of the Zugspitze. The honeymoon went on, with limited impairments. We got home to the US and sought a consult with a US orthopedist, who told my wife that he would have done the same thing.

So, while we found German healthcare to e excellent in terms of affordability and the professionalism of the care providers, the treatment plan- at that time- seemed a bit too conservative if not antiquated: no one in the US would have treated a simple fracture with open reduction surgery at that time. I hope that aspect has changed.

I only have the one experience with German Medicine as well. Mine was in 2012.

I can say though, I've never seen a doctor in an urgent care here in the U.S., or been out of one in less than 3 hours, even when it was empty, and heaven forbid you need xrays around here, you'll be waiting 5 hours. We are in a medical "shortage" area though for staff.

I've been to so many doctors in the U.S. that I've got so many bad experiences that I can't even count them. The worst was when a oncology Nurse Practitioner lied to me about what a doctor wrote in my chart; such that I thought for 3 months my oncologist had lied to my face.

I also have a friend who's oncology office (the same office I went to for cancer treatment) tried to administer the wrong chemo drug at an incorrect dose- something only caught by my friend's wife, who's a layperson. And apparently they were rude to her and demanded it was correct; she had to fight them tooth and nail to get them to even double check and physically put herself in the way of the nurse to prevent it from being administered. (My friend is dying, he's depending on this chemo to give him a year with his wife and kids; it's not a silly mixup.)

So I'm pretty sure every place has bad experiences.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Philosophy professionals are scholars who have studied the baseline of logic and reason along with the varying moral varieties and agendas of the human condition. They have in depth knowledge of the denotation of language and how that language is used to navigate and create social constructs.

Could they remain unbias? Absolutely. That is the very nature of their thinking.... with an end result into the preservation of humanity that is.
Guidance and perspective would be their very function... One, that too often, is not even considered (potential ramifications, side effects, etc) in modern day government. The removal of this branch of government (which yes, has existed in the past, though maybe not in america after the founding fathers), is the very reason why big business and corruption rules at the top.

Yeah that's what I thought.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Could they remain unbias? Absolutely. That is the very nature of their thinking....

The next unbiased scientist or scholar will be the first.

 

[philosophygirl78]

The next unbiased scientist or scholar will be the first.

This was referring specifically to an unbias of political leaning as asked. Not overall unbias. So yes, philosophers and ethics scholars CAN detach from this type of bias perspective.

 

[philosophygirl78]

You've got to change the moral underpinnings of the entire system before that'll happen, and you really can't do that without bringing the whole system down. It's like trying to move a deteriorated house off a rotting foundation.

I would say rehabbing the house is still an option... For now.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I would say rehabbing the house is still an option... For now.

Until the roof falls in.

 

[Fading Fast]

This was referring specifically to an unbias of political leaning as asked. Not overall unbias. So yes, philosophers and ethics scholars CAN detach from this type of bias perspective.

The problem is ethical questions such as is cold-blooded murder wrong aren't ethically that hard or too political, but questions like climate change, tax policy, healthcare, wages (think, for example, minimum wage), abortion and on and on have their ethics entwined with politics. I don't think there is a magic bullet - your "unbiased" or apolitical philosopher will have to have a political view on minimum wages and all the rest.

For example, an ethicist on the left would argue a higher minimum wage helps lift low-earning people out of poverty while an ethicist on the right would say a higher minimum wage increases unemployment for those at the lowest end of our wage scale and makes it hard for them to develop the skills necessary to move up that scale. Ultimately, we might not like it, but our current political system settles our political - ethical questions by a rough approximation of public will.

Those outcomes that well over 50% of the public want - we tend to get and those that are 50-50 we fight over. Most recently, we have seen a shift in the country's view on gay marriage. As the percentage of the population that supports it increased, we elected politicians who would legislate same-sex marriage into law. Thirty years ago that wasn't possible as the percentage of the population that supported it was well below 50%. You could argue that popular vote is not always ethical - yup, agree. But it has proven, IMHO, the best of a set of not perfect options.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The problem is ethical questions such as is cold-blooded murder wrong aren't ethically that hard or too political, but questions like climate change, tax policy, healthcare, wages (think, for example, minimum wage), abortion and on and on have their ethics entwined with politics. I don't think there is a magic bullet - your "unbiased" or apolitical philosopher will have to have a political view on minimum wages and all the rest.

Well said. With respect to those questions that would require scholarly thought, I don't agree that said scholars can uniformly detach their perspective from their own views on what they think should be the answers.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Well said. With respect to those questions that would require scholarly thought, I don't agree that said scholars can uniformly detach their perspective from their own views on what they think should be the answers.

So your suggestion then is that we leave it up to lobbyists, politicians ans mega corps to administer morale and ethics and leave scholarly perspective out?

(ps not directed just to u).

 

[HudsonHawk]

So your suggestion then is that we leave it up to lobbyists, politicians ans mega corps to administer morale and ethics and leave scholarly perspective out?

(ps not directed just to u).

I believe that's what you philosophers call a "straw man".

I'm not suggesting scholarly opinion has no role, nor that lobbyists, politicians, and mega corps are infallible or even preferable. Only that everyone has bias.

 

[p51]

There is skilled labor and there is cheap labor, but there is no such thing as skilled cheap labor.

Yeah, tell the companies that employ them that. Far too many companies hire skilled people or train them to be so, and expect them to be so pleased they have a job in a questionable job market, reminding them constantly that they're lucky to have work.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I believe that's what you philosophers call a "straw man".

I'm not suggesting scholarly opinion has no role, nor that lobbyists, politicians, and mega corps are infallible or even preferable. Only that everyone has bias.

i dont know... i wouldnt call it a straw man... you state a negation for a given premise, yet offer no alternative... leaving only the current state... or was there another component i missed?