Socialised Healthcare Leads To A Busybody Society

[tumeric_turner]

Have a listen to Dan Carling's Beer for Breakfast Podcast , I think he makes some very good points about the way society is nowadays perceiving harm from drugs and other 'antisocial activities'.

I doubt that he knows much about the NHS, but his point about the drive to badger individuals into a healthy lifestyle is very familiar to us in the UK -- smokers, drinkers, fatsos are public enemy Nr. 1, and health is becoming a blame issue, where it appears to be a-ok to not treat patients as a punishment for them 'making themselves sick in the first place'.

The UK has certainly changed very much in the past 20 years, from being an easy-going live&let live place we changed into a society of busybodies.

Edited August 13, 2007 by tumeric_turner

[Hughie Green]

Americanisation, rich white = cool, everyone else can get fucked.

[tumeric_turner]

Americanisation, rich white = cool, everyone else can get fucked.

Have you listened to what he said? You posted 6 minutes after I put the link up, but the show is about 35 minutes long :wink:

There is a very good point here to be discussed, namely that our society has changed it's definion of 'harm' lately. That's what I am hoping to discuss, it's not an issue of colour, wealth or how we deliver healthcare, but a discussion of the changes to our understanding of personal freedom and norms.

[Guest Gert Lush]

Nice topic, tumeric, wish I had a bit more time to go into it in depth!

Well, I hope your thread is around for a long while, I think there's a lot to be said here....

I do wonder though, whether it's just a case that we already ARE a busybody society anyway, and this just gets manifest in the "Socialised Healthcare" system, although there's probably a good few feedback loops in there, too.

I believe the true individualist will always do things their own way, no matter what the legislation, but frankly it would be nice to have much less of a nanny society. However, that's not going to happen when most people feel they need a nanny, is it?

For most people, the way I see it, the determining force is panic and moral righteousness.

OK, there are obvious cases where, say, children are at risk, but what about the borderline cases: Would a person who encourages their chidren to be brave be condemned as irresponsible? Who's to make that judgement?

Ultimately you'd have to define what "society" is, or at least what "your" society is, what parameters you're happy to work within, and go from there.

e2a: Might be nice to find a way to "protect" us from knee-jerk reactions and replies, though!

Edited August 14, 2007 by Gert Lush