Monday, September 14, 2009

Interdependence and What It Means

In my previous blog, I used the term “interdependence”. What is interdependence? Interdependence is one of four ways we rely and communicate with others. Before I completely define interdependence, it will be easier to understand once the other three ways are explained.

The first is what society wants everybody to strive for, independence. Independence is simply defined as relying on oneself completely. The second is the complete opposite, dependence. Dependence is when one completely relies on another. The third is co-dependence, an unequal dependence between multiple people. I believe our society has evolved into a co-dependent society. Many people rely too much on others for support and help and only give back however much they see fit. This gives those people an excuse to judge others and classify them. I am not talking about minority groups; I am talking about the majority groups. Taking the example from my previous blog, doctors and insurance agents make up a portion of the majority group, part of the “upper-class”. If a patient goes to a doctor, but the doctor does not accept the patient’s type of healthcare, how is this fair? Again, isn’t it the doctor’s duty to see that the patient is in good health? The doctor is classifying patients by ruling a majority of them out or asking for monetary payment in return. The doctor is relying too much on support from insurance companies; therefore, decreasing the number of patients instead of doing his or her duty by making sure all patients are in good health. In an interdependent society, doctors would make sure that all patients are in good health.

Interdependence is defined as an equal dependence between multiple people. As I stated in my previous blog, in an interdependent society, everyone collaborates peacefully using their unique gift with the objective to maintain equal amount of survival for everyone. Doctors know the value of a life, and no matter of the type of healthcare, would treat each patient, as it is his or her duty. The patient would then return the favor by giving a type of need, as it is essential for life, to make things equal.

To amount of what is given should not play a role or even come into question, because the outcome will always be survival, and that is the main goal in an interdependent society.


Friday, September 11, 2009

Healthcare Does Not Bring Peace

Many people have asked me about my thoughts on healthcare. It is obvious that one needs to be in good health in order to survive. Insurance companies are the ones that decide whether an individual receives healthcare and the amount. Those individuals who can afford more insurance obtain more insurance than those who cannot. Is this fair?

If two patients with identical health issues but with different amounts of healthcare insurance went to a doctor, should the doctor favor the patient with more insurance over the other? Of course not. Doctors solely exist to better their patients’ health. Doctors are essential for life because in order to survive, one needs to be in good health. Both patients need to be in good health and therefore, the doctor must do his or her duty by tending to both of them.

Everyone has a gift, a duty, in life. Doctors have the duty of putting patients in good health. By giving good health, the doctor is giving the patient a better chance of survival. There is no price on survival. The doctor should not expect monetary payment in return. This is what many people oversee. Doctors should expect a better chance of survival in return. In my previous blog, I stated that one needs three things in order to survive: replenishment, thermoregulation, and communication. Whichever the doctor is lacking, he or she should expect in return.

Two issues may arise with this method. One being what if the doctor is not lacking in any of the three types of needs. I find this quite unlikely since communication is always a need. People may not want it, but it is a need. For example, if the doctor healed a fisherman, the fisherman could easily return the favor by teaching the doctor how to fish. This will not only include communication, but also replenishment. Thus, making the doctor more knowledgeable and well-rounded, able to teach others how to fish. The other issue is what if the patient has nothing to give in return or does not have what the doctor needs. I find this hard to believe as I believe everyone can teach something to better another. If not, the patient could locate someone who could do something for the doctor if the patient did something for that someone. Despite these issues, they come with an advantage. In either issue, the patient has started a network, a community. This community is not just any community, but a community of interdependence; where everyone collaborates peacefully using their unique gift with the objective to maintain equal amount of survival for everyone.

And ultimately, isn’t that fair?