Many believe that what separates modern humans from their prehistoric ancestors is our rationality. BUT IT AIN'T TRUE! Humans are not rational creatures--they are ruled by intuitive beliefs, if not outright superstitions, tribal ideologies, and emotions. In other words, we're not so evolved from our caveman days. Some American examples:
The US ranks last in healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality, and chronic disease care versus every other first world economy. Cost of care is the only thing that U.S. is ranked #1-- and by a long shot. Here's proof and more proof. What every other country surveyed has in common is a universal national healthcare system.
Now a rational person would think that maybe a national healthcare plan might not be a bad idea in this country, since other nations have shown that it would cover everybody, reduce costs, and improve outcomes. But when Obamacare came along and took some baby steps to create a more inclusive healthcare system, many raised a hue and cry based on pure ideology and unfounded emotion that this new system would somehow compromise our freedom.
In other words, Americans were saying that they would miss the freedom of being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, their age, or their occupation. They would miss the freedom of losing all their assets as a result of a serious illness or injury and they would miss the freedom of paying higher premiums under the old system because their insurance companies were being forced to pay the emergency room expenses of people who couldn't afford their care because they took advantage of their freedom not to buy health insurance.
Sure, Obamacare has its flaws,namely the unnecessary added expense of the role played by insurance companies as the middle man, but that's part of the politics. But a rational person would probably say that a plan that results in more people getting more coverage a step in the right direction.
Then there's climate change. The science is proven and a rational person may think that maybe we should try to move away from fossil fuels if we care to sustain the human race beyond the next few generations. But we are not rational. Otherwise, why do so many people profess a belief that climate change is a myth and that burning coal and oil is just fine. Even the government continues to subsidize the oil industry at almost three times the rate as green energy.
But I would call that a belief of convenience. Why believe in something that would force us to alter our lifestyle--a tax on carbon, more fuel-efficient cars, a larger commitment to mass transit, larger subsidies to renewable resources. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair, people will believe anything if their paycheck and lifestyle depend on it.
Of course, people in Europe are no more rational than the U.S., though they have better healthcare and climate policies. Their economies remain in the dumper because they continue to follow policies that have proven time and again to cause or worsen recessions--and they follow policies based on emotion, superstitions, and ideology.
A rational policy based on past history of strategies that have worked would call for fiscal stimulus that would spike demand and help lift these economies off the canvas. Even a limited stimulus in the U.S. had a positive effect in the U.S. in 2009, and a great effect in the early 1930s and 1940s. But again, people do not make decisions based on rational thought.
After all, why do so many people still go to church and pay tribute to some invisible phantom in the sky every week? Is that the behavior of a rational creature or is it more like an expression of the fear-fed superstitions characteristic of our prehistoric ancestors?
The US ranks last in healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality, and chronic disease care versus every other first world economy. Cost of care is the only thing that U.S. is ranked #1-- and by a long shot. Here's proof and more proof. What every other country surveyed has in common is a universal national healthcare system.
Now a rational person would think that maybe a national healthcare plan might not be a bad idea in this country, since other nations have shown that it would cover everybody, reduce costs, and improve outcomes. But when Obamacare came along and took some baby steps to create a more inclusive healthcare system, many raised a hue and cry based on pure ideology and unfounded emotion that this new system would somehow compromise our freedom.
In other words, Americans were saying that they would miss the freedom of being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, their age, or their occupation. They would miss the freedom of losing all their assets as a result of a serious illness or injury and they would miss the freedom of paying higher premiums under the old system because their insurance companies were being forced to pay the emergency room expenses of people who couldn't afford their care because they took advantage of their freedom not to buy health insurance.
Sure, Obamacare has its flaws,namely the unnecessary added expense of the role played by insurance companies as the middle man, but that's part of the politics. But a rational person would probably say that a plan that results in more people getting more coverage a step in the right direction.
Then there's climate change. The science is proven and a rational person may think that maybe we should try to move away from fossil fuels if we care to sustain the human race beyond the next few generations. But we are not rational. Otherwise, why do so many people profess a belief that climate change is a myth and that burning coal and oil is just fine. Even the government continues to subsidize the oil industry at almost three times the rate as green energy.
But I would call that a belief of convenience. Why believe in something that would force us to alter our lifestyle--a tax on carbon, more fuel-efficient cars, a larger commitment to mass transit, larger subsidies to renewable resources. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair, people will believe anything if their paycheck and lifestyle depend on it.
Of course, people in Europe are no more rational than the U.S., though they have better healthcare and climate policies. Their economies remain in the dumper because they continue to follow policies that have proven time and again to cause or worsen recessions--and they follow policies based on emotion, superstitions, and ideology.
A rational policy based on past history of strategies that have worked would call for fiscal stimulus that would spike demand and help lift these economies off the canvas. Even a limited stimulus in the U.S. had a positive effect in the U.S. in 2009, and a great effect in the early 1930s and 1940s. But again, people do not make decisions based on rational thought.
After all, why do so many people still go to church and pay tribute to some invisible phantom in the sky every week? Is that the behavior of a rational creature or is it more like an expression of the fear-fed superstitions characteristic of our prehistoric ancestors?
No comments:
Post a Comment