Who's hiding what?

What I find disturbing is that on a recent trip to al-Khiam, locals had no issue with us taking pictures - hardly something to suggest they are hiding weapons. Interestingly, only UNIFIL seemed to have a problem with our presence, while Hezbollah were more than welcoming. This begs the question: who has something to hide? Or more to the point, who are supporting Israel's propaganda war through limiting access to a town with nothing to hide, and who have felt the full impact of Israeli aggression? Click here for the article.

In a privately run health care system, the opportunity cost for doctors of any time they spend not rendering services will vary according to the equipment and time they have available. It would appear that US doctors are paid depending on the treatments they provide and because the equipment they have available is often a fixed cost, in order to secure profit, the incentive is for doctors to overprescribe. This is not to say that they do this, such an assumption would be unfair. However if we were to embark upon a program to improve efficiency, we might employ more doctors per surgery in order to spread to fixed costs and decrease average total cost. Marginal cost is low, however potential marginal revenue can be quite high and thus the suggestion that doctors may be accused of providing unnecessary services in order to increase their pay (which as mentioned before is variable according to the number / type of service provided).

In the UK, the system is quite the reverse. Each region is given a budget and the responsibility to spend it according to the needs of the population. E.g. if there is a high propensity for COPD, then the necessary equipment would be prioritised over, say, a maternity ward (assuming here that COPD is high because of an older than average population, thus lower than average birth rates). The UK system is designed to ensure investing in equipment and distribution of spacialisations are in line with local variations. With regards to GPs (doctors), they are paid according to the number of patients on their register, not according to the quantity / complexity of procedures they undertake. Thus the salary of the GP is a fixed cost. Furthermore, in the UK the majority of healthcare is public and health organisations do not seek a profit. Incentive therefore lies in achieving the quality, innovation, productivity and performance targets set by the regulatory authorities. Meeting these would increase the budget for subsequent years, and targets are set such that year on year improvements are recognised. This gives health organisations who have a history of below average performance an incentive to provide better quality care because they are able to measure their progress and not feel consistently judged against their national peers.

In comparing the two systems at this high level, it appears that while a system that pays on a fee-for-service basis represents an incentive for doctors to provide excessive or unnecessary treatment in order to secure additional fees and thus higher revenue, focusing on quality and innovation ensures that resources are not wasted and patients receive the level of treatment they require. I would certainly be keen to investigate this further and do a comparative study of health care systems across the world.

The best memories

Is my desire my downfall because I believe it is mine alone?

To be in perpetual conflict with the world that is around us is a philosophy that many have explored. Is it fair to say that each and every one of our desires are driven by an interaction with the external - be it conscious or not?
True, to believe we can find inspiration within without the elements of our external environment would be naive, even when the environment within and without no longer make sense. Subconsciously they are inseparable. What's within is shaped by the external and our interpretation of that external environment is a personal one shaped by what is within. If they don't make sense it's often because we're faced with the unknown, something our internal self has yet to experience through external happenings, and has yet to imagine through internal conscience.
However, to return to the original question of how our internal conscience and desire is fed by the external, our uniqueness must also be considered. Indeed, we may feed off each others desires but our manifestations of these will always be unique.

My uniqueness is mine, so why question it?

We're all unique and yet there exist a plethora of frameworks and tools which seek to identify our personalities. Surely this profiling is doomed to fail at the first hurdle, indeed how can I be categorised if I am me and no one else? I accept that certain personality traits can be more or less prevalent in each individual, and I'll be the first to admit that to date, my personality "type" has always been spot on (for the record I'm an idealist with an artistic streak). What I have difficulty with is the idea that we are born into our personalities, that our character is set in stone relatively early in our childhood. Surely our exposure to people, places and experiences, our interaction with these and our ability to increasingly live in multidimensional realities stretches our persona to the limits of existential psychoanalysis

Equity vs. Equality

Because we are living in a society where we have access to the same resources, does this make us as individuals equal? Or more to the point can we claim to live in an equitable society? Indeed, one persons position in an equal society can be a symbol of another's failure. Because I earn less than you, am I less successful? Because I come from a privileged background, is my success any less worthy?
The debate is even more poignant when opened up to health care. Indeed, in the UK we can almost speak of an equal and equitable health care system, until that is we cross the line into drugs pricing. While in the US, the equality on which the nation is built is a far distance from achieving equity in health care provision.

Negative Peace

I came across an interesting term today - "Negative Peace". It worries me that academics and indeed politicians have gone so far as to stretch the definition of Peace to include anything other than what is a positive outcome. Indeed, a cessation to violence - whether permanent or fragile - is a period of peace; an opportunity for parties to conflict to reassess their ideals; to see the potential for dialogue; and to embark on dialogue for peaceful resolution. While the permanent state of peace, that "Positive Peace" has been coined to define, may not always be tangible, the potential for coexistence and the hope that periods of non-violence give a society are more valuable than time spent seeking to define the state of affairs. War is not a science, the only rules of conflict are those which are wisened to after the event.