User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 97

  1. #31
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's what's happening to the health service in this country, social services and other care services are all managed under the same umbrella as part of the one service administered by a series of Trusts. In the rest of the UK I think there may be divisions between the social services and care services, managed by local authorities, and the health service, managed by Trusts. The tactic is the same though.

    I thought that US had a more pluralistic system, like adoption services, foster services, even some hospitals and medical services being provided by churches, I know the RCC used to own and manage some hospitals at least, even if they are largely secularised now. I'm not saying its any better, I know that a lot of conservatives here in the UK see it as a desirable alternative to system we have and imagine that it will materialise, somehow, I dont know how to be honest, if they simply privatise or simply stop delivering services at tax payer expense.

    I've even spoken to some conservatives who've said that they think professions like social work are pointless anyway, either something that should be delivered by charities or which is a kind of revival of the poor law anyway, working with people in crisis being something akin to unpicking a large rope and then binding it up again to be unpicked the next day. That sort of thinking really bugs me but it does endure and is very strong among certain constituencies and they always vote.
    That's another method of "removing taxpayer burden". In reality it removes oversight and regulation as well. I don't think the majority of people in the US stop to wonder why there are so many charities and why is there so much need. If they did, they would likely not find a gazillion excuses to skip voting. If Bill Gates can put 20 billion into a charity then he can pay more in taxes, I'm not sure why anyone has difficulty understanding something this simple. Perhaps politicians should frame in the way I did about defunding/privatizing.

    In the US one of the largest health systems is Catholic Health Initiatives, it's in 20 states. Trinity Health is in Michigan and busy gobbling up other hospitals and health systems. These are non-profit but certainly not non-revenue and mergers almost always increase cost to patients. I don't want my health care to be decided by any religious guidelines so I stick to a research university backed health system. But people are so pushed by cost, health miniseries are getting popular, even with the non-religious. Hopefully some secular options will be available.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    That's another method of "removing taxpayer burden". In reality it removes oversight and regulation as well. I don't think the majority of people in the US stop to wonder why there are so many charities and why is there so much need. If they did, they would likely not find a gazillion excuses to skip voting. If Bill Gates can put 20 billion into a charity then he can pay more in taxes, I'm not sure why anyone has difficulty understanding something this simple. Perhaps politicians should frame in the way I did about defunding/privatizing.

    In the US one of the largest health systems is Catholic Health Initiatives, it's in 20 states. Trinity Health is in Michigan and busy gobbling up other hospitals and health systems. These are non-profit but certainly not non-revenue and mergers almost always increase cost to patients. I don't want my health care to be decided by any religious guidelines so I stick to a research university backed health system. But people are so pushed by cost, health miniseries are getting popular, even with the non-religious. Hopefully some secular options will be available.
    I think the role of faith communities in ownership of hospitals or delivery of services is an interesting one, on the one hand I know where the tradition stems from, the very word hospital is derivative from the hospitaleers, a religious, military order which protected pilgrims to the holy land, but that said, I'm willing to bet that the services are provided by professionals now and not religious, who may not even have any role in the hierarchy of management or administration.

    The idea that religious precepts, dogmas or natural law would trump medicine in any way is a strange one, highly contradictory I'd guess but I'm not sure the extent to which that this is an issue or not. There are secularist campaign groups who get paid to profile issues and if there arent any how to they make a living? Dont get me wrong I think there is cause sometimes but that its become a source of revenue, campaigning, is something that involves "moral hazard" in the economic sense.

    In the UK its a difficult thing for conservatives to talk about, NHS privatisation, as it is something that, despite the often very well documented bad management or other issues, people do not want to see threatened in any way. The Brexit leave vote won a massive amount of votes by printing on buses what they promised to invest in the NHS post-brexit from funds they said they would not be sending to Brussels, however, within an hour of victory they did a U-Turn and said there would be no investment.

    The thing about the defunding that always bothers me IS the removal of regulation and oversight, its yet another of the "so long as its private its not really a problem, at least not my problem" idea which just serves feckless politicians, this is part of what I dont like about what is understood by libertarianism in the US, its such a gift to rich and powerful people who want to be less and less accountable or responsible for anything.

    The point about the proliferation of charities matched with the persistence of the problems is also a very, very good one too. When we discussed welfare pluralism in social policy at university I always thought of charities as being about something other than actual remedy to the problems they were set up supposedly to tackle, instead I always thought they were for volunteers, an avenue for anyone who had the time and freedom or compulsion to volunteer in some way. If anything at all I thought that welfare pluralism's value was in recognising how important informal services or care was, especially the unpaid work of women (sometimes even children or young carers), which is pretty much invisible to a lot of people. Not in bigging up money, charity or as an enabler for tax shirkers or social darwinists.

    I dont know if secularist funders exist or if they could compete with other providers if they did decide to enter a marketplace as providers, its not as though secularists have been that good at organising the equivalent of churches or older religious institutions. I did once read a book written by an American on this topic precisely which repeatedly encouraged Americans to give up on the idea of a European style institutional welfare and social services as opposed to the residual model in the US and instead invest in the US alternative. I didnt like it because that model is precisely what a lot of organised big money individuals with their political cronies are trying hard to import into Europe. Its mainly an english speaking world problem at the moment I think but it could spread.

  3. #33
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think the role of faith communities in ownership of hospitals or delivery of services is an interesting one, on the one hand I know where the tradition stems from, the very word hospital is derivative from the hospitaleers, a religious, military order which protected pilgrims to the holy land, but that said, I'm willing to bet that the services are provided by professionals now and not religious, who may not even have any role in the hierarchy of management or administration.

    The idea that religious precepts, dogmas or natural law would trump medicine in any way is a strange one, highly contradictory I'd guess but I'm not sure the extent to which that this is an issue or not. There are secularist campaign groups who get paid to profile issues and if there arent any how to they make a living? Dont get me wrong I think there is cause sometimes but that its become a source of revenue, campaigning, is something that involves "moral hazard" in the economic sense.

    In the UK its a difficult thing for conservatives to talk about, NHS privatisation, as it is something that, despite the often very well documented bad management or other issues, people do not want to see threatened in any way. The Brexit leave vote won a massive amount of votes by printing on buses what they promised to invest in the NHS post-brexit from funds they said they would not be sending to Brussels, however, within an hour of victory they did a U-Turn and said there would be no investment.

    The thing about the defunding that always bothers me IS the removal of regulation and oversight, its yet another of the "so long as its private its not really a problem, at least not my problem" idea which just serves feckless politicians, this is part of what I dont like about what is understood by libertarianism in the US, its such a gift to rich and powerful people who want to be less and less accountable or responsible for anything.

    The point about the proliferation of charities matched with the persistence of the problems is also a very, very good one too. When we discussed welfare pluralism in social policy at university I always thought of charities as being about something other than actual remedy to the problems they were set up supposedly to tackle, instead I always thought they were for volunteers, an avenue for anyone who had the time and freedom or compulsion to volunteer in some way. If anything at all I thought that welfare pluralism's value was in recognising how important informal services or care was, especially the unpaid work of women (sometimes even children or young carers), which is pretty much invisible to a lot of people. Not in bigging up money, charity or as an enabler for tax shirkers or social darwinists.

    I dont know if secularist funders exist or if they could compete with other providers if they did decide to enter a marketplace as providers, its not as though secularists have been that good at organising the equivalent of churches or older religious institutions. I did once read a book written by an American on this topic precisely which repeatedly encouraged Americans to give up on the idea of a European style institutional welfare and social services as opposed to the residual model in the US and instead invest in the US alternative. I didnt like it because that model is precisely what a lot of organised big money individuals with their political cronies are trying hard to import into Europe. Its mainly an english speaking world problem at the moment I think but it could spread.
    No kidding.

    In the US all it takes is talking about something long enough, good or bad. Most people are so susceptible, it's very easy to get them behind any idea if you repeat it enough.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    No kidding.

    In the US all it takes is talking about something long enough, good or bad. Most people are so susceptible, it's very easy to get them behind any idea if you repeat it enough.
    I'm seeing a lot of that on this forum at the moment.

    Its used to be Mole I saw bringing it but its more than Mole these days.

    Maybe the whole forum is a sort of Skinner box to see how this works.

  5. #35
    Shadow Sovereign Sung Jin-Woo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTX
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    I will change how it functions. I think trauma forces previously conscious behavior, into the subconscious. While it is still functioning, not having conscious awareness leads to believing it is gone, or not feeling anything. Much like an earthquake causing a river to go underground.

    I have personally experienced this. My trauma forced me to suppress my empathy, but with certain events, I realized I cared a lot more than I felt. It was hella confusing, because I thought I didn't care, but the tears will come randomly and or I would just break down and not know why.
    1w9 5w4 4w5
    Omni-variant

  6. #36
    Summer laintpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    596

    Default

    On a personal level, it made me want to help people, but when they are right in front of me the best I can do is listen. I don't have the right words when they tell their stories or describe what they're dealing with. It's typically not enough. To counteract that I try to help in other ways— creating social media content for nonprofits that help trauma survivors (mental health emphasis), advocacy, and tabling events. Ultimately I think content creation that communicates the state of a person post-trauma are as close as I'll ever get to showing unfiltered empathy.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Quick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    MBTI
    INFX
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/sx
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Trauma is like a catalyst for a lot of things. Sometimes people do really terrible things because they have been traumatized. Some people get lucky and live in a safe environment for most of their life after trauma and can learn to grow their empathy substantially. Some people just want to kill everyone after going through trauma.
    There is a very thin line that separates genius from madness and it is a red line that is razor sharp.
    Be careful what you expose yourself to because it could very well ruin you.


  8. #38
    c'est la vie Obfuscate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Enneagram
    954 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ili Ni
    Posts
    1,776

    Default

    for me it was a bit of both... it made me harder and softer; sometimes in the same area... i would say it more reshuffled my capacity for empathy than increased or diminished it over all... i think that a lot of how you handle it has to do with who you were prior, how you processed what happened (during/after), and how you are treated following it... there are things that can happen to you that can either break or shape you... how that happens is sort of up to you... it is never too late to change your path and mindset, but what happened will always remain a part of you...
    "Every one interprets everything in terms of his own experience. If you say anything which does not touch a precisely similar spot in another man's brain, he either misunderstands you, or doesn't understand you at all."

    "Whether you experience heaven or hell, remember that it is your mind which creates them."

  9. #39
    Senior Member Quick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    MBTI
    INFX
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/sx
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obfuscate View Post
    how that happens is sort of up to you...
    This is really fucking complicated and needs to be unpacked, but I don't feel like doing it atm...
    There is a very thin line that separates genius from madness and it is a red line that is razor sharp.
    Be careful what you expose yourself to because it could very well ruin you.


  10. #40
    darkened dreams Ravenetta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,274

    Default

    Secular human service and charity work is extremely important. Faith-based work can show preference to clients who are part of their religious organization. My mother is in a nursing home run by one specific religion and we are always afraid of her getting kicked out if they need the bed for a baptized member. People also come in and try to convert her. I saw it one time when they tried to give her religious literature to read, and she has dementia! She lives in a world where her stuffed animals are alive and have personalities and relationships. They want her to agree with their fundamental doctrines? Anyway, faith-based charities almost always feel a need to convert people when they are at their most sick and vulnerable. It is a moral violation to do that. Secular charitable organizations are necessary for any hope for equal rights within vulnerable populations.
    It's entirely possible and realistic to live your life in such a way that you don't accidentally rape people.
    I'd rather be a fool than be dismissive.

Similar Threads

  1. why does prayer work for some people and not for others?
    By prplchknz in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 08:38 PM
  2. Replies: 84
    Last Post: 08-25-2013, 12:31 AM
  3. [INFP] For those that are unsure of their INFPness or if there some 'other' type...
    By flameskull95 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO