Just One Eye Wide Shut

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A typical day for letter-writers in The West... A series of one-eyed rants which ignore the possibility of an alternate viewpoint...

(In this blog I am willing to rant from both sides or either side of the argument. Whichever needs more support.)

Take, for example, the two letters which the Editor has placed under the common heading of, "We Disagree":

Taking Coal from Margaret River

Paul Starling works in the mining industry and then spends his hard-earned money in Margaret River. Margaret River is opposed to mining in Margaret River. "Is this," writes Starling, "A case of double standards?"

If only he had stopped to think...

Why does Starling spend money in Margaret River? Is it, perhaps, because he enjoys the area? The lack of noisy industry? The clean, unpolluted atmosphere?

Or does Starling really, as he spends his money in Margaret River, think to himself, "Gosh, I wish there was a mine here!"

Sorry to belabour the point, but... People visit Margaret River to get away from mines and industry and their 9-to-5 jobs. A new mine is not a tourist attraction. Push the logic ad absurdum: If Margaret River were to become a dedicated mining and industrial centre, would anyone (other than Paul Starling) go to visit?

Probably not.

Paying for your Own Old Age

David Prichard is all excited about poor people deserving to be looked after. Well, fair enough! That is not enough to justify his anti-rich rant.

A previous letter-writer claimed that "it would be unjust to be charged to enter a nursing home when others less wealthy than you pay nothing." Prichard reverses that claim and sees it as an attack on the poor. These are not the same:

• You get it free so why should I pay? and
  
• I can afford to pay so you should get nothing.
  

Can you see the difference?

The previous letter-writer wants equality -- equal access to a "free" service. Prichard misinterprets this as a call to deny the "free" service to people who cannot pay.

Let me reassure you: It is no fun to live in a nursing home. Certainly not the "free" ones. They operate with minimum staff, minimum food, minimum individual attention. There may be a whole lot of love and good intentions -- but nursing care is a business. It cannot operate at a loss. But it's better than nothing.

I'm with Prichard: poor people are entitled to the "free" services of a nursing home. But so are rich people.

If someone has managed to save some money for their retirement -- please, allow them to spend it -- if they want to -- on a better level of nursing care.

Don't use ability-to-pay as a tool to force rich people down to the lowest common denominator. Allow some freedom to use what they have.

Though if there is more public money to spare -- use it to improve the very basic level of "free" nursing home care.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com