*
Commercialism
is the order of the day in medical profession. People are scared to go to Allopathic doctors. Consequently other disciplines such as Homeopathy Ayurvedha and the like have become sought after
systems.
The problem in allopathy is the very process of selection of candidates for the study. Now mostly mathematically minded people and those who get high scores by rote learning get selected for the study of medicine. Actually people with biological orientation are right candidates for medical studies.Because of this terrible flaw in the selection of MBBS students (who do not have the right aptitude) the profession has been hijacked by the money minded to mint money at the cost of honesty and integrity and medical ethics. Mushrooming of corporate culture in medical profession is a terrible deviation from the ethical profession.
It is high time that serious attention is paid to the selection process. NEET and other methods of selection have contributed only to the commercial culture as they help to create artificial merit as against natural and real merit.

Allopathic-modern scientific meficine

Those who study medicine are invariably those with the resources to pay for the most expensive courses, in this case medicine: Those without the necessary resources to pay will fail to qualify on economic grounds. Ability has less to do with the outcome of quality graduates than you suggest.

Medicine is one area in which quality cannot be compromised as it deals with life.Creating and establishing hospitals in an industry like fashion with profit in mind is an important cause for the problems in the medical field. Doctors getting dividends from the managements for their work is a dangerous proposition making doctors behave like traders.
Medicine can be taken away from privatisation. Govts should invest more for hospitals. Govts. should make medical studies affordable to deserving candidates.
Medicine should be delinked from "investment profit motive" . Only then medicine will be a humane service.

#Medicine should be delinked from "investment profit motive" . Only then medicine will be a humane service#

It already is delinked. There is a public and private component.
For example; if you enter the hospital system as a public patient, all your medical needs will be dealt with at taxpayer expense. Mostly this is achieved by entering the hospital system through the emergency ward. (I’m not aware of other entry points into the public system).

Private hospitals are generally not facilitated with emergency wards as entry points, however, the public system will often (as not sometimes), purchaser services from the private system.

The private health system is exclusively for wealthy people generally speaking.
For example, a cataract operation will scoop the eye surgeon $40k per eye; to a large majority of people, this operation that Fred Hollows advertised for Africans, would cost $25 in parts.

The profit margin for the medical industry is astronomical by comparison to the world of normal people. It’s why they live in expensive houses at the expensive end of town.
Medicine is for rich people, one end to the other!

Yes the private hospitals cater to the rich mostly.Ultimately it is the doctors who are responsible for the mess in field. If doctors are humane people the inequitable distribution of health care would not arise. That is why it is paramount that the selection of candidates for the Medical course should be done with care and conscience.

Ezhil says "Now mostly mathematically minded people and those who get high scores by rote learning get selected for the study of medicine."

Well that's not really how it works, rather people who are gifted academically and can apply themselves to study select Medicine (ie: there is no government agency or other body that "selects" people to become doctors).

So why do smarter people chose medicine?
Because Medicine is a very hard course it requires someone to have a high IQ/study drive to do it, it is widely considered in the top 5 brainiest courses behind Maths, Physics, and Engineering (most forms of Engineering, some branches are easier than others). That means that not many people can become doctors, simply because they're not intelligent enough or don't have the drive to devote themselves to study (we're talking 95%+ of the population doesn't have what it takes to become qualified doctors). So due to this fact there is built-in limited supply. Which means that their wages/salaries are going to be high as opposed to other workers in the health field such as nurses where their occupation doesn't require such a high IQ/study drive to become qualified. So to a 17/18 year old who's just finished school and who has a desire to work in the health industry, they're enticed to select Medicine instead of Nursing if their IQ is high enough and they're prepared to study hard- since they can make more money as doctors.
In general, those who become doctors do have a desire to help people and improve the lives of people, it's just that they can make more money as doctors than other health care workers so they chose Medicine. If doctors weren't driven by a desire to work in the health industry they'd probably choose another high IQ profession where they can earn a similar or higher income.

Academically gifted people also should have responsibility to help the society as they had the opportunity to show their academic merit by studying in institutions established by the society. But for the society they will not have any identity.
People interested in making money can do business. They need not study medicine and make it a business.The society never forced anybody to take up medicine as career. It is their voluntary decision.

http://x.com/AV24org/status/1868716074646089752

>>REPORTER: “Do you believe there's a connection between vaccines and autism?”

TRUMP: “Look, right now, you have some very brilliant people looking at it.
I had dinner the other night with the head of Pfizer, the head of Eli Lilly, and, RFK, as you know, and Oz … If you look at autism 30 years ago, I've heard numbers of like 1 in 200,000, 1 in 100,000. Now, I'm hearing numbers of 1 in 100.
So something's wrong. There's something wrong, and we're gonna find out about it.”<<

Why don't we 'the people' put both the left and the right in power, and we 'the people' decide which of the two 'dumb and dumbers' have the correct policy for each issue?

Why Socrates Hated Democracy
http://youtu.be/fLJBzhcSWTk

There is a centrist, honest path other than the left and the right. Civilisation should take us to that level. But unfortunately civilisation is detailed by social concepts such as nation,religion etc and the man remains highly parochial in his Outlook. No democracy can work in any Uncivilised society.

Democracy is derailed and not detailed - correction

Correction : civilisation is derailed instead of democracy is derailed

Armchair Critic- thanks for the video on why Socrates didn't trust democracy.

Lessons of the video- 1. There is a difference between what people want and what people need. 2. The electorate needs to have a good understanding to elect the right person.

There are ideas that run counter to this idea but it's good that this video questions the assumption that democracy is an absolute good. I think it suggests implicitly that those that are doctors ie have a university degree, are naturally good, and this is also problematic, but nothing is perfect.

Also Socrates isn't correct about everything either- this also is demigogery. The Greed Conservative Diogene's seemingly ridiculed Socrates- probably about his eternal questions- there is perhaps a time for questions and a time for answers.

Perhaps the suggestion here is that in order to vote people should pass a test of some sort. I suppose there is a balance between the requirement to have a minimum understanding, and shutting people out of the process- which affects the smooth transition of leadership, that is the point of democracy.

Some like Indyvidual say that military service is the way to test this minimum understanding.

According to some the point of democracy is to provide for a smooth transition, in order to avoid war becoming the only means of transition of leadership and policy. Sadly in the modern era it seems that the system, and the bureaucratic gatekeepers, have become a barrier to the people getting what they want, so perhaps war is the only answer again

There is always a problem when part of society holds the whole of society hostage. But at the same time the society needs to pay for the cost of the services. This can be paradoxical. One way to address this paradox is by balancing government and private domains. Marxist's would claim that all services should be nationalized. Libertarian's would claim that all services should be privatized.

It's a tricky problem.

Milton Friedman said that government interference in private enterprise is usually misguided.

In the case of doctors- how do you maintain the quality of the service and increase the numbers. It's the classic project management triangle of speed/ quality/ price.

We need people in leadership positions that are able to deal with paradoxes.

Hi Canem Malem,
Perhaps there's some more knowledge to be gained from Plato's The Republic

From Google AI:

"Plato's Five Regimes -
In The Republic, Plato describes five forms of government: Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny.
Plato's theory is that governments naturally degenerate from aristocracy to tyranny, in that order.
He also assigns a man to each form of government to represent it.
For example, the tyrannical man represents tyranny.
Plato's Republic also includes the allegory of the cave, which is a metaphor for the effects of education on the human soul.
Some critics have interpreted Plato's Republic as a dystopia, arguing that it portrays a totalitarian state.
They say that Plato's state is ruled by a hereditary class, with no role for the working class in decision making."

The Republic by Plato | Complete Audiobook with Text
http://youtu.be/rVJFz84ZPWQ

Are we moving from democracy to tyranny?
- You tell me.

I feel that the discussion has digressed greatly. Past history has not helped politicians to change for the better. The mistakes continue to happen with impunity. Let us build new ideas from the present. How to improve the existing problems in the medical services is the idea of my post. Selecting ideal candidates to become doctors who will uphold medical ethics and render services with conscience is the urgent need. Let us confine to that.

"Let us build new ideas from the present."
- I'm all for good ideas, how about lower the cost of hospital parking?
Or building a smoking area so people in palliative care don't have to go sit at the bus-stop.
Or stop using ambulances as mobile waiting area for hours sitting out the front of emergency when there's limited staff and beds.
And if you have to wait 8hrs to be seen, why not just let people go home and wait for a txt?

Are we moving from democracy to tyranny?

I'm a fan of The Republic by Plato as well as Aristotle's The Politics. I'm sure that Plato had a reason for saying what he said about the progression of political systems. I'm certain that some regimes are stable or unstable independent of regime type because there are wide differences in how each is implemented. ie. Two democracies can be very different.

Nial Ferguson says that cyclical theories of civilization are wrong because some last for ten years and some last for a thousand years.

However we could be in a state of democratic despotism now (Tyranny), according to Patrick Deneen.

Some try to manipulate reality by labelling freedom as tyranny and tyranny as freedom. I find it interesting to hear that Marxist's label "right to bear arms" as tyranny rather than freedom. I can't see a civilization that has a right to bear arms as tyrannical because the population would shoot the rulers. But there needs to be a balance between freedom and tyranny, between rights and responsibilities. School could be seen as a form of tyranny. Often people try to jump to the solution, before defining their terms, establishing baselines, creating alternative plans, checking to see if the plans will meet the goal, etc.

Let us probe why civilisation is derailed.
Why should we treat persons on the other side of countries' boundaries as foreigners?
What makes them foreigner? Why not neighbours?
This alienating mindset among nations is highly reprehensible, which leads to enmity between nations.
People are indoctrinated to think of "Their nation ; their people"
Rulers invoke parochial terms such as Nationalism, Patriotism, religiosity etc to keep this mindset intact among the masses.
When India and Pakistan play cricket it is captioned as "Arch Rivals India and Pakistan are fighting out " Such is the level of alienation between nations.
Who made the boundary of nations? Was it God? Is it natural? we all know it is man made.It is likely to change due to incursions by other rulers. Then what is sovereignty of a nation? This parochial mindset among the people as well as the political class is derailing the the process of civilisation. Let us ponder over this tragedy seriously

This is what came to mind from Ezhil's comment-

Why would Ezhil impose our beliefs on those on the other side of our border, this is a form of colonialism, why would we take away their sovereignty over their own territory?

By the same logic why would or should we give up our sovereignty to others. This is similar to the issues over the back fence (but also different).

Is Ezhil a Marxist that doesn't believe in the concept of ownership? Ownership operates at both the individual and the group level and the national level, etc even though some ideologies try to deny it. Even Liberalism tries to deny group cultural ownership when it suits themselves.

Is Ezhil "a post-nation world" believer? This seems to be an ideology designed to de-territorialize everyone in the world. Some say that de-territorialization is an element of genocide. Post-Nationist's appear to be Marxist's.

Hi Ezhil,

I can only speak from my own experiences regarding
our country's health system.

What I have experienced over the years and especially
fairly recently has been positive. In this country we're
fortunate that we have many providers of health
services. We have primary care delivered by general
practicioners (GPs). We have medical specialists. We
have allied health workers and nurses.

Then we have medicine and the public hospital system
which provides free and low cost access to most of these
health care services.

There is of course private health insurance which gives
us the choice outside the public system. And we have the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which makes medicine cheaper.

I've been in and out of hospitals recently and found nothing
to complain about in our health system. No system is perfect
of course and perhaps I have been fortunate. But from what
I have experienced - I found that our health system is
very good. My medicines are under constant review. They've
been changed recently - and I am doing well.

There's more at the following:

http://health.gov.au/about-us/the-australian-health-system

None of you have answered my queries.l am not a Marxist but a humanist.You people are obsessed with only Marxism capitalism etc.Pepple can think independently,you must know. Can you explain the widespread territorial disputes seen in the world. Barbaric wars are fought over boundary issues. What is happening in Russia and Israel? Let us worry about the sovereignty of individuals rather than that of nations. Your "nation" collapses when rulers are dethroned by coups( military or terrorism) what happens to the sovereignty then?
We must allow civilisation to proceed to a better advanced level. Colonial Concepts such as Nation and social concepts such as Religion play spoilsport in the advancement of civilisation because of which the world is in perpetual problems.

Hi Ezhil,

I'm so glad and feel privileged to be living in
Australia.

Let me explain. I'm currently reading Alexei Navalny's
book - "Patriot"

" Patriot" ia as dramatic as the author's life - driven
by the passionate belief, against all odds, that good
and freedom will prevail. It is Alexei Navalny's final
letter to the world , a rousing call to continue his
work, an unforgettble positive account of a life
that will inspire every reader".

The book is written in his own words In 2024 he died in
a brutal Siberian prison

I belong to the category of persons who cannot remain happy in the midst of colossal problems in the world. We must be civilized enough to feel perturbed by what is happening around.
People's nationalist mindset has made them immune to the problems faced by fellow citizens of the world. Such people should not forget that every country in the world is dependent on other countries for their welfare and survival.

It's individual people that can make change. They can
become beacons to millions. Leaders can offer people
hope especially when they are convinced that good
and freedom will prevail.

With Christmas just around the corner, there's another
book that's worth considering in your Christmas gift
giving:

"The Legend of Albert Jacka" by Peter FitzSimons.

" This is an unforgettable story of the bravery and
sacrifice of one extraordinary soldier that takes us
from the shores of Gallipoli to the battlefields of
France". Brought oto vivid life by Peter FitzSimons.

We have a choice - we can point out only the negatives
and continue to whinge and complain or
learn from great people and leaders like Weary Dunlop,
Caroline Chisholm, Vincent Lingiari,
and all their positive historical kin - so that we can
become the Australias we aspire to be, and more
importantly, create the Australia we aspire to live in.

It's our choice.

Let us think not only of a better Australia but also of a better world.

Ezhil said- l am not a Marxist but a humanist.

I smiled when I read that. In my experience humanism is code for Marxism. From memory there are historical links between Marxism and Humanism.

Hi EZhil
"Can you explain the widespread territorial disputes seen in the world. Barbaric wars are fought over boundary issues. What is happening in Russia and Israel?"
- Probably, but nobody wants me to go there.

I think you are looking for a better fairer world, much like me.
The path to this outcome is the multipolar or multinodal world order as opposed to the U.S. based (Unipolar) or rules based order.

"A multinodal world order is a global system where power is distributed unevenly across a web of relationships, rather than being concentrated in a few major powers.

- Basically it's a 'round table with all sitting around it' rather than a 'long table with the U.S at the head of it.

If humanism is the code for Marxism how can Marxists indulge in war? Let us not worry about the text book definitions.Definitions also should evolve as man civilizes. we can give our own definitions for a better world.In fact humanism should be the basis for a civilized world.

First step is the aetiological diagnosis of of the problems seen in the world. Then comes the treatment as suggested by Armchair critic.That is a serious exercise involving world bodies like UN. I do not know whether such an exercise is possible in the near future.

Hi EZhil,
Firstly, the U.S isn't going to go quietly, the empire is sacrificing it's vassal states.
The West (under Trump) seems to be heading towards protectionism, tariffs and a trade war where the G7, (the collective west) and BRICS nations split into 2 distinctive trading blocks.
Who knows where that will end but were all going to be paying more as they duke it out and it might come to open conflict.

I used to believe that a multipolar world was possible. But few are ready for the responsibility. China definitely isn't. China should focus on improving itself before trying to improve the world. Being a leader can be a thankless task, but a necessary one.

Hi CM,
To better understand what the anti-west want, it's probably an idea to look at SCO, as compared to the Wests liberal interventionism, (i.e regime change operations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
>>The SCO is the successor to the Shanghai Five, formed in 1996 between the People's Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan...

...The Shanghai Five group was created on 26 April 1996 when the heads of states of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai.

On 24 April 1997 the same countries signed the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in a meeting in Moscow, Russia.[6] On 20 May 1997 Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin signed a declaration on a "multipolar world".

Subsequent annual summits of the Shanghai Five group occurred in Almaty, Kazakhstan in 1998, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in 1999, and in Dushanbe, Tajikistan in 2000. At the Dushanbe summit, members agreed to "oppose intervention in other countries' internal affairs on the reason of 'humanitarianism' and 'protecting human rights;' and support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability." The Shanghai Five structure helped speed up the members' resolution of border disputes, agree on military deployments in border areas, and address security threats.<<

There is a difference between word and spirit as well as words and actions. I'd be interested in how China would respond to being pressure tested on these principles. Whether they would see the long or the short term benefits, whether they would honour the deals. China's history in the 20th century doesn't seem to support the case overall, that they do business in good faith. American's generally stab you in the face. This is one reason China can't be part of the western commonwealth, because it's all about Chinese sovereignty and it's shifting officials. Sadly we can't do much about the billion people in the Chinese matrix.

The world is ruled by strategists and not by statesmen. The communism in China does not care for humanism.Humanists will not go for a mighty army to fight against the so called enemies- the neighbouring countries.Let us understand that killing people whether they are nationals or neighbours is a barbaric activity. No humanist will do that. In India there was a king Ashoka by name who renounced war after seeing the devastation in one of his wars( kalinga war). Power mongering Pseudo communists cannot deliver the goods. It is the case with the other countries as well.
Only when politicians are saner individuals, there can be some semblance of order and peace on earth.
The various enactments made at the different conclaves will not be implemented by the selfish and corrupt rulers(politicians). Their survival is more important for these crooks than the welfare of people or their lives. No civilized country can engage in war invoking things like patriotism, nationalism, sovereignty etc. The earth belongs to every one who inhabits it. People of America voted for Trump in spite of his bad antecedent. The fact that only crooks get elected again again is a pointer to the the sorry state of affairs that prevail in the society. The society is plagued by fanaticism of nation, fundamentalism of religions and the like. Unless universal brotherhood is inculcated among people specially children in educational institutions I do not see any silver lining.

It sounds like that Ezhil has read the story but hasn't understood the lesson. Ashoka sounds like he may have come from the Bagavad Gita. The lesson of the Bagavad Gita is said to be that war is annihilation but you must still do your duty- a paradox. Some are unable to transcend paradoxes- they haven't developed the intellectual capacity. I suggest that Ezhil reads about paradoxes- start with Zeno's paradox that has less emotional content to distract from the lesson.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on paradoxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

Interesting that Ezhil says that the CCP are "Pseudo Communists". Many Trotskite's say that Marxism has never been tried, but has been used in every case to obtain power, rather than admit that there are fundamental faults with Marxist logic.

Faith without analysis.

At least Ezhil sees problems with the Chinese CCP.

Please understand that reading paradoxes will not be of any use.People should become saner civilized persons.You must be a mathematically minded individual, I feel. Such people do not understand social issues properly.
The problem today in the world is more social than political. As long as people in the society remain divided on various irrational isms politics will thrive taking advantage of the situation. Why go by books? Let us use our common sense.

I think that Hebrew management guru Peter Drucker was a fan of Transactional Management (social) over Transformational Management (authoritarian). Perhaps it's a bit of both in the right context. The strange thing is many practitioners confuse the two.

As they say there is a place for all things under heaven, even Mathematics. Perhaps Ezhil should learn a little mathematics. Mathematics is really about recognizing patterns. Mathematics isn't always "logical" in a sense, sometimes it invents systems just because they work. If we had better Mathematics teachers with passion in schools we would have a better community. We need teachers that are not just seat warmers.

I call mathematicians as " Black board perfectionists". They do not understand social issues properly. I feel that The whole world is in peril because almost all important positions are held by mathematically minded individuals with poor knowledge on social functioning but with a skill to pose as knowledgeable persons.Decision making power should not be given to mathematicians.They must be used only to make some calculations useful for taking a decision.

You also shouldn't let politicians solve engineering problems.