I had a teacher once who would always say "'Fair' is just another four-letter F-word"... but he was talking about grading things, so I didn't like him very much.
I've thought about the same issues you bring up here, and came to the conclusion, we don't really want society to be 'fair', in this sense. If it were so, people would be stuck in a cycle of poverty, the rich would get richer, the poor get poorer, and those people that need our help the most would get marginalized and devalued for the sake of 'fairness'.
Good post.
Elizabeth
· 1 year ago
I agree. If we wanted a "fair" system we'd be a socialist or communist country, not one founded on capitalism. But that's not to say that we should give up the fight and let abuses of the sytem go by with impunity. We know that there will always be new instances of $1500 toilet seats or young people who destroy their minds, bodies, and futures with drugs and alcohol and will never become contributing members of society but they are the exceptions, not the rule. For each Casey Serin, there are thousands of honest, hard-working real-estate investors. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, again, are exceptions. With all the media attention given to characters like these, it's easy to develop a warped perception of how "unfair" things really are.
Meg
· 1 year ago
I disagree with you a bit about the medical funds and time spent keeping very sick people alive. It's hard to advocate letting even the sickest children die, so let's consider the issue in terms of old people.
Few people would advocatethat society (i.e. each and every taxpayer) spend $20 million dollars on a series of surgeries to keep a 98 year old car crash victim alive. But where's the line? What about spending $5MM or $2MM? I think it helps to consider what the sick person would be willing to spend if he/she actually had to pay for the medical care, even assuming even that they had vast financial resources. Say that 98 yr old actually had $20MM in the bank. Do you think he/she would rather blow it all to potentially stay alive for another year, or go ahead and die and leave all that money to family and/or charity? Almost any rational person would choose the latter.
If people had any idea what their medical treatments actually cost, few would ever be willing to pay for many of them - which of course would drive down costs. But instead the government and insurance companies cloud the whole system and pay for the excess. I dont' think they should do that except in very select cases. And it's not just about the crazy costs of keeping people alive who should simply be allowed to die. I also don't want my insurance premiums to continue to skyrocket so that millions of people can opt for expensive lifetime medications to prevent things like allergies and indigestion just so they can keep their pets and live off fast food.
SavingDiva
· 1 year ago
I have mixed feelings about this post. I don't think a fair system can exist. There will always be exceptions to rules and someone finding a loophole.
Meg does have a valid point on the problem with the health care industry. Since this isn't my blog, I will just say that the health care industry will have to undergo a complete renovation in order to decrease prices (not just announcing the prices to the masses).
deepali
· 1 year ago
The case of the 98-yr-old with $20M is interesting. I would throw out the idea that that person *would* actually spend that money trying to stay alive. Someone who has that amount of money has spent a fair amount of time amassing such wealth. They wouldn't want to give it up so easily. If any of us were so readily willing to part with a large sum of money (at any stage of life), we wouldn't spend so much time and effort on investing/saving for retirement.
And I'd also argue that insurance premiums, people's bad choices, and the cost of health care are not necessarily correlated.
And just a last note - I actually find all the situations fair (not sure about the last one, but definitely the first two).
plonkee
· 1 year ago
It's more important to me to err on the side of ensuring people don't go without unfairly than ensuring that people don't take more than their fair share.
I do think there needs to be a grown up debate about when the cost of medical treatment is too much - and that's even more important in the UK because of our state funded medical care.
Steward
· 1 year ago
As to the health car issue - I think it is very dangerous when we start attaching price tags to human lives, but I certainly understand how it can happen. I just wish it didn't have to be that way.
In terms of the tax and fairness issue I think that we do have a system that is fair in some respects, but not every respect. As was pointed out, the reason that our tax system is bad but not unbearable is that one day we could benefit from it too. It would be entirely different if our system allowed no mobility because it was based on some arbitrary, unalterable phenomena - like who our parents are or what our natural hair color is. That would definitely constitute an 'unfair' system.
sfordinarygirl
· 1 year ago
My boss used the "fair" word when explaining why I couldn't attend a free workshop related to our industry that was 5 blocks away from work. He said it wasn't fair to the other people who are working hard and slaving away inputting the content. He said it wasn't fair that I wanted to advance when he himself didn't know what opportunities were available to him.
The workplace isn't fair. People get promoted who don't deserve the extra boost. Some get bonuses and earned every cent. If the workplace was fair how would we ever get things done. I don't know if that makes any sense. Just my 2 cents.
All Comments
I've thought about the same issues you bring up here, and came to the conclusion, we don't really want society to be 'fair', in this sense. If it were so, people would be stuck in a cycle of poverty, the rich would get richer, the poor get poorer, and those people that need our help the most would get marginalized and devalued for the sake of 'fairness'.
Good post.
Few people would advocatethat society (i.e. each and every taxpayer) spend $20 million dollars on a series of surgeries to keep a 98 year old car crash victim alive. But where's the line? What about spending $5MM or $2MM? I think it helps to consider what the sick person would be willing to spend if he/she actually had to pay for the medical care, even assuming even that they had vast financial resources. Say that 98 yr old actually had $20MM in the bank. Do you think he/she would rather blow it all to potentially stay alive for another year, or go ahead and die and leave all that money to family and/or charity? Almost any rational person would choose the latter.
If people had any idea what their medical treatments actually cost, few would ever be willing to pay for many of them - which of course would drive down costs. But instead the government and insurance companies cloud the whole system and pay for the excess. I dont' think they should do that except in very select cases. And it's not just about the crazy costs of keeping people alive who should simply be allowed to die. I also don't want my insurance premiums to continue to skyrocket so that millions of people can opt for expensive lifetime medications to prevent things like allergies and indigestion just so they can keep their pets and live off fast food.
Meg does have a valid point on the problem with the health care industry. Since this isn't my blog, I will just say that the health care industry will have to undergo a complete renovation in order to decrease prices (not just announcing the prices to the masses).
And I'd also argue that insurance premiums, people's bad choices, and the cost of health care are not necessarily correlated.
And just a last note - I actually find all the situations fair (not sure about the last one, but definitely the first two).
I do think there needs to be a grown up debate about when the cost of medical treatment is too much - and that's even more important in the UK because of our state funded medical care.
In terms of the tax and fairness issue I think that we do have a system that is fair in some respects, but not every respect. As was pointed out, the reason that our tax system is bad but not unbearable is that one day we could benefit from it too. It would be entirely different if our system allowed no mobility because it was based on some arbitrary, unalterable phenomena - like who our parents are or what our natural hair color is. That would definitely constitute an 'unfair' system.
The workplace isn't fair. People get promoted who don't deserve the extra boost. Some get bonuses and earned every cent. If the workplace was fair how would we ever get things done. I don't know if that makes any sense. Just my 2 cents.