Health or Life

 Greetings,

Yet another medication has fallen under the hammer of the government, removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. In this case it is Deptran its generic form being Doxepin. It is nominally an antidepressant. In my case it is used to assist with the cluster headaches which happen as a result of the issues with my neck. So the result is that I will be going along to the doctor with my wife to find a replacement, some other drug that will have the same effects, that won't upset the balance with all my other medications...

Why is this article here and not on my fibromyalgia blog? The reason is that I am going to get a little philosophical and likely a little political with my post. 

Our government changed from a Liberal (conservative) government to a Labor (less-conservative) government last election. Some haled it as a change for the better, things would be better for lower-income earners and pensioners, like me. Yeah, better, I think there has been a $40 increase in my pension... wow. So thrilled... not. Prescriptions have increased again. Prices and inflation are still going up and as previously stated things are just being made more difficult for people on lower incomes.

If a person were of a conspiratorial mind one could almost think that it was a project of eugenics. You simply make life so expensive that the poor cannot afford to live and they die off. The problem is that then the rich people would have no one to do all their menial labour, and they will feel the bite, if they ever "fall." Then again, I have already spoken about "the rich" and perspectives on who is rich and who isn't.

I have multiple conditions which is the reason that I am on a disability pension. I am on a low income due to the disability pension. To afford all of the things that would assist me to become as healthy as I could be would result in me not having a life... and likely result in me losing the house that I have bought. So, in effect I have the choice of being "healthy" or having a life. In an expression that one of my friends likes or liked to use, "I'm here for a good time, not a long time." I prefer quality of life over quantity of life. The result is that I will have a life rather than health, or at least just enough health to survive and do what I like to do. I will make the best of my situation.

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
- Hunter S. Thompson

I like the quote from Thompson above. I tend to go through "boom and bust" situations. I go as hard as I can and then happily pay for the consequences of my actions later on. This may not be the healthiest way to approach things, but I sure get my enjoyment out of things. I probably should put money away and save to go to the physiotherapist and other allied health, but I would rather spend it on having a life, living life to my best capacity. I will find ways and means with what I have, this is what I have so this is what I will work with. In the choice between health or life, give me life.

Cheers,

Henry.

Rich and Poor: It's a Matter of Perspective

 Greetings,

There is a divide in our societies between "the rich" and "the poor" and this divide is only getting wider. The access to services from either side of this divide is also only getting more and more divided as well as those who end up in government are those from "the rich" rather than the poor as the system is bent in their direction. This will be an examination of the concept of "the rich" and "the poor" and how it is most often a matter of perspective.

When most people think of "the rich" they think of people like the now notorious Elon Musk, possibly Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other such wealth individuals who influence life in society, or at least attempt to in various ways. These people can more easily be classified as the "ultra-rich". They could stop working and simply wait for their income to roll on in with little effort on their part, still making multi-million dollars from their assets. This is a perspective of those who are reasonably well-off.

Consider politicians. According to public government records, a retiring Australian politician is paid a minimum of $185,000 per annum, with an additional percentage of their annual pay indexed by their years of service, paid for life. This payment is made by legislation, i.e., can be increased by a vote of the same politicians. Their basic salary is $211,250, again adjusted by different service, and adjusted by different methods, and voted by the same politicians who are getting paid the salary. This does not include the various perks they claim, including travel, food and accommodation.

If we then compare this to the average salary in Australia, which is $1,250 per week, or $65,000 per annum (calculated at 52 weeks), it shows a stark contrast between the "average Australian" that these politicians are supposed to represent and the amount they earn. Is it any surprise that politicians in Australia are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent? 

If we then make a further comparison between the most "vulnerable" in Australian society there is an even starker contrast between the politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. The Age Pension, maximum basic rate, $936.80 per fortnight, or $24,356.80 per annum. The Disability Support Pension, i.e., those who have been declared unable to work, is the same at its maximum rate, in both cases if you are partnered, the rate drops for both of you, resulting in about the same amount. For a single person looking for work, i.e., unemployed, the basic rate is $668.40 per fortnight, or $17,378.4 per annum. With these numbers is it any wonder that politicians have no clue about the situation of people looking for work, or maybe the reason they have little motivation to do so? Most of the people on these payments are too busy worrying about how they are going to survive.

Now, all of these numbers can be found on government websites, as you will find if you click on any of the links. I have not pulled them from social media, or other forms of media, they are not hype or anything, they are the cold, hard facts. 

If we examine the numbers that are presented, a person on the maximum rate, consider that the maximum rate for either the Age or Disability Support pension is getting less than half the average salary of the average Australian. In one case the individual has already worked their entire life, in the other case they have been deemed unable to hold a standard occupation, unable to hold full-time employment. 

Moving entirely away from figures and comparisons between them...

A person may be sitting on a pension of some kind, and be quite happy. Having completed a their work for their career, they may have paid their house off, planned their retirement and be sitting happy with their pension. They could be entirely unconcerned about such things as the gap between how much they are getting as compared to someone else.

In contrast...

A person working at a job may be sitting at some relatively comfortable salary above the average and still not be happy. They could be concerned about how to get their next promotion; once they do that then they can afford the house that they think that they are entitled to; move out of the apartment which is draining a part of their income. They are concerned about all of these things yet could be earning well above the pensioner described above.

Happiness, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how much money you earn. The young working person may be more fiscally-wealthy but I would say that the pensioner has a richer life.

We make comparisons between ourselves on the basis of our fiscal worth, which in many cases are arbitrary, and based on elements of fortune and social statuses. Are there not values which we hold more dear more important? Can we not value each other more on the basis of our worth to society, what we give or gave to society?

The comparison between "rich" and "poor" is a matter of perspective. A person who is of a much lower socio-economic position may find a person who is of a middle-level of socio-economic standing quite wealthy in comparison to themselves, even though the person who is at this middle-level may not consider themselves to be wealthy, especially in comparison to those who are above them. When questions about who is "rich" and who is "poor" eventuate, it is a matter of comparison, a simple matter of perspective. 

Our society is run by those who are at the top, who we call "the rich" I would say that these individuals are more qualified as the "ultra-rich" in reality, well beyond the "average" individual's capacity, if there is such a thing as an "average" individual. If we examine our politicians and where they stand, while they are not quite in this "ultra-rich" position, they surely aspire to join them, and thus approve measures which assist those in such positions, along with themselves to improve their fiscal position. These are the individuals who we need to take a hard, long, look at and decide whether or not they, or the systems which they promote, are truly in the interest of the people they purport to serve.

Cheers,

Henry