Mitchell,Luke. “Sick in the Head: Why America won't get the health-care system it needs.” Harpers Magazine. The Harpers Magazine Foundation, Feb 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.
Read this article
As my topic deals with technology and the advancement on medicine I decided to start off my reading responses with the primary debate that is currently happening in congress over the HR 676 which is the universal health care system. Luke Mitchell the author is trying to understand why this bill has yet to be passed in congress and has come up with a few main ideas as to why. The first of these involves how this new health care bill will effect the market based system of economics that America has immersed herself into over the years. Mitchell points to president Obama saying that in order to transform America to a single-payer health care system, meaning that the government would foot the bill, that it would be a difficult transition to for us to undertake. He then points to Montana senator Max Baucus would said that those who are not covered should pay into a private cooperation and subsidize those who could not afford to do so. This would be the closet thing to universal health care that we could achieve without changing the markets completely. The second idea is how much coverage should be given to those under universal health care. The problem Mitchell says is that medicine and technology is growing so fast that we can not possible cover all new technological advances. We just cant afford to provide the latest health scan to every person there has to be a “budget” as to what gets covered and what doesn't. The final problem is the idea that Americans look to technology to repair any problems that their life may present them with. Mitchell points to the IDN or integrated network delivery where every persons DNA is placed into that any doctor or specialist can access and recommend a course of action. He also points to new nano technologies that will be able to fix any problems using microscope robots. These are the main points to which Mitchell is trying to focus us on.
What I took away from this particular article is the amount of problems that we face as Americans towards HR 676. This bill is proposed as a universal health care system but it ultimately will still be run by the markets that the economy has created. More people will be covered, pre existing conditions will not matter but we still have to rationalize this health care coverage. Mitchell's most valid point in why Americans wont get the health care system they need is simply rationalizing. Now days we can not afford to help those who are poor and cannot afford health care however under universal health care will we be able to cover them but to what degree. This fraction of a degree is why no health care system will be perfect. Certain people will all be left out the question is do we give good coverage to most or little to all? In a way I think Mitchell is trying to get people to realize that no system is perfect but which is the lesser of evils. I think the last thing Mitchell is trying to get the reader to understand is that while many feel that we will eventually be able to solve all of our medical problems through technology hence there will be no need to leave any out as we can cure all diseases at birth is that how soon will this be a reality. Sure over the past hundred years we've progressed from flying a simple plane to landing on the moon but how feasible is landing on the moon been since then let alone every human being. Technology may ultimately cure all illness but when that becomes a feasible option for the over 6 billion and growing humans on earth is another problem all together.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
"There's always more"
Berry, Wendell. “Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits.” Harper’s Magazine. The Harper's Magazine Foundation, May 2008. Web. 31 Dec. 2009.
In "Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits" Wendell Berry tries to show how technology has become an integrated part of our society and how this could be a problem in the future. He starts with the idea that we as humans have the idea that the natural resources of the earth are basically limitless. That we as humans believe that we will be able to get more despite the resource being nonrenewable. He bases this idea on the fact that we as humans have a hard time understanding our limits in the natural world. This could be due to our perceived notion that God has intended us to be the superior animal who can use resources as we please. He downplays this thought by saying that even animals are limited by their natural surroundings. He then brings up two distinct examples of how we can change our thought process that earth's natural resources will last forever. The first example being that of a community based economy. This might appear to be a socialist idea but Berry is simply pointing that we must make rational decisions as a community not as a single individual. The second example being that we must slow down and look out we have. He uses a comparison between scientist and artist. While a scientist builds upon past experiments creating more advance technology, the artist is confined to a single piece of paper. He says that we must start viewing the earth as that single piece of paper meaning that we only have once chance to make it work right.
Wendell Berry's view on how we as humans view earth's natural resources is very important because it challenges us to look at our current situation and look at it whole heartedly. The idea that we still have 100 years worth of coal left at double the rate provides us as humans the idea that we should continue to burn coal at our current rate. Berry is getting at the idea that we feel since we wont be here in 100 or 200 years that this notion of conserving has little appeal to us now. Berry also brings in the topic of religion to make the audience think about how we can justify our behavior. As he states that some will say that we are given this power by God who has ordained us the superior animal on the kingdom of earth. How we change this cultural idea of being superior animals is another topic Berry tries to answer. His comparison between an artist who is limited to a piece of paper and a scientist who is allowed to build upon prior experiments is an excellent metaphor for the earth and human interaction. The reader can easily make a connection between the earth being a single piece of paper that we our only allowed one shot at while scientist can experiment and then build upon the past failures. He challenges us to not assume that science will be the ultimate answer and to rather go forth with caution.
In "Faustian Economics: Hell Hath No Limits" Wendell Berry tries to show how technology has become an integrated part of our society and how this could be a problem in the future. He starts with the idea that we as humans have the idea that the natural resources of the earth are basically limitless. That we as humans believe that we will be able to get more despite the resource being nonrenewable. He bases this idea on the fact that we as humans have a hard time understanding our limits in the natural world. This could be due to our perceived notion that God has intended us to be the superior animal who can use resources as we please. He downplays this thought by saying that even animals are limited by their natural surroundings. He then brings up two distinct examples of how we can change our thought process that earth's natural resources will last forever. The first example being that of a community based economy. This might appear to be a socialist idea but Berry is simply pointing that we must make rational decisions as a community not as a single individual. The second example being that we must slow down and look out we have. He uses a comparison between scientist and artist. While a scientist builds upon past experiments creating more advance technology, the artist is confined to a single piece of paper. He says that we must start viewing the earth as that single piece of paper meaning that we only have once chance to make it work right.
Wendell Berry's view on how we as humans view earth's natural resources is very important because it challenges us to look at our current situation and look at it whole heartedly. The idea that we still have 100 years worth of coal left at double the rate provides us as humans the idea that we should continue to burn coal at our current rate. Berry is getting at the idea that we feel since we wont be here in 100 or 200 years that this notion of conserving has little appeal to us now. Berry also brings in the topic of religion to make the audience think about how we can justify our behavior. As he states that some will say that we are given this power by God who has ordained us the superior animal on the kingdom of earth. How we change this cultural idea of being superior animals is another topic Berry tries to answer. His comparison between an artist who is limited to a piece of paper and a scientist who is allowed to build upon prior experiments is an excellent metaphor for the earth and human interaction. The reader can easily make a connection between the earth being a single piece of paper that we our only allowed one shot at while scientist can experiment and then build upon the past failures. He challenges us to not assume that science will be the ultimate answer and to rather go forth with caution.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Introduction to Technology and Society
In just a little over a hundred years we have gone from the first manned flight by the Wright brothers, to walking on the moon, to establishing a international space station. The advancement of technology has brought about modern medicine, personal communication, and knowledge to people around the world. While technology has obviously done wonderful things for society it has also created many problems that people often protest to. There are two major issues that deal with technology that interest me. These include cloning or stem cell research, and the miniaturization of technology. The first, cloning, interesting me because of the spiritual and moral issues that come about when dealing with artificially creating another being. The second issue is the miniaturization of technology which is how technology has gone from huge computers to computers that can fit in your hand or backpack. How these have changed society or could change society in the future are points in technology that interest me.
The technology of cloning or stem cell research has interest with me because its possible use for medical advancement, food development, and its moral dilemma in society. With the advancement of cloning we could in the future be able to artificially grow limbs, heal diseases that were once incurable, and increase longevity of life. While these all sound great on paper the idea that we as humans are only meant to live for so long brings up a moral dilemma. Whether you believe in God or not humans simply are not meant to live as long as it could be possible with these future technology. While the goal of this type of research would help many people the idea that we could ultimately live for as long as we desired is a question that we as a society must decide. The idea though that this technology could end starvation by creating artificial food would help a great many people on the world as well as limit the amount of land we need to produce food and save more land for the future. The miniaturization of technology will continue to make technology smaller and more compact eventually replacing more and more items that we use everyday. The fact that todays cell phones have more computing power than the first space shuttle to the moon is evidence that technology is going to eventually be miniaturized to an unbelievable level.
The technology of cloning or stem cell research has interest with me because its possible use for medical advancement, food development, and its moral dilemma in society. With the advancement of cloning we could in the future be able to artificially grow limbs, heal diseases that were once incurable, and increase longevity of life. While these all sound great on paper the idea that we as humans are only meant to live for so long brings up a moral dilemma. Whether you believe in God or not humans simply are not meant to live as long as it could be possible with these future technology. While the goal of this type of research would help many people the idea that we could ultimately live for as long as we desired is a question that we as a society must decide. The idea though that this technology could end starvation by creating artificial food would help a great many people on the world as well as limit the amount of land we need to produce food and save more land for the future. The miniaturization of technology will continue to make technology smaller and more compact eventually replacing more and more items that we use everyday. The fact that todays cell phones have more computing power than the first space shuttle to the moon is evidence that technology is going to eventually be miniaturized to an unbelievable level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)