Developing cancer is not only about having bad luck

Developing cancer involves a lot more than just a bit of bad luck. External factors such as exposure to toxins and radiation are major risk factors in developing cancer, the new study’s says.

So environmental factors play important role in cancer incidence and they are through lifestyle changes and/or vaccination.

The large risk of cancer is a property of the changing environment such as smoking and air pollution. But also too much exposure to the sun and a poor diet plays a big role.  Because of the study, it will build up a conversation about why there is some variability in the types of cancer.

The media interpreted that many of the cancers were due to bad luck. Some people develop cancer because of bad luck at the cellular level. two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle and came up during DNA replication. some tissues are millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others. That is the biggest reason why people say that it is due to bad luck.  But this of course do not give people license to smoke or start using tanning banks. The most deadly types of cancer are still influenced by lifestyle. smoking accounts for a fifth of all cancers worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that nearly half of cancers, could be prevented if people changed their lifestyle or reduced their environmental exposure to cancer-causing agents. They said the results suggested 70-90% of the risk was due to extrinsic factors.

While healthy habits like not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, eating a healthy diet and cutting back on alcohol are not a guarantee against cancer, they do dramatically reduce the risk of developing the disease. more than four in 10 cancers could be prevented by lifestyle changes,

I think that everybody has to be aware of the fact that you can see that getting cancer is not only because of bad luck. We all have to help each other to reduce the change of getting cancer and we have to change the environment. The globe is facing a “tidal wave” of cancer. Researches predict that the number of cancer cases will reach 24 million a year by 2035 if we go on like we are doing right now, but half could be prevented. You can do a lot to reduce your cancer risk, and you can’t just blame “bad luck” for getting sick.

Stop the production of cheap meat!

In the Netherlands, on Tuesday the 8^th of December, the Second Chamber didn’t get an majority on the issue that these so called ‘kiloknallers’ should be prohibited. ‘Kiloknallers’ is the name in the Netherlands for very cheaply produced meat that is sold in grocery stores for almost next to nothing. The plan was proposed by the PvdA, but is declined as they got no majority.

This is an issue that is going on for years now. The core to this issue lies within the grocery stores. There are five major import organizations that decided what the consumer in the Netherlands gets to eat: Albert Heijn, Jumbo, Superunie, Lidl and Aldi. There is strong competition between these organizations and every one of them offers their products cheaply to be ‘the cheapest one’. The meat is made extra cheaply, because this will lure the consumers into the supermarkets. These ‘kiloknallers’ have as consequence that many farmers can’t earn enough to live on and then stop or go bankrupt. The ones that are still producing are doing it on a large scale and want to get the most out of the animals as possible.

What are the consequences for the animals? They suffer a lot. The first consequence is that they have very little space. They put a lot of animals together on one small square meter to increase profit. The animal’s beaks and tails are cut off to fit the spaces. Anesthesia isn’t used, because that would cost too much time and money. The second consequence is that they are bred to grow very quickly. The organs and skeleton can’t keep up with this fast increase in size and causes the animals to become ill. The last consequence is that the farmers mess with their circadian rhythm. They do this in two ways: letting the light on longer, so they will be awake longer to eat and grow even more or shorter, so they sleep more and eat less animal feed. All these things they do to these animals are horrible and will only cause them to be ill and who wants to buy meat made from an ill animal?

I think that they should prohibit these ‘kiloknallers’, because it effects the farmers, the animals and consumers. The farmers earn way too less this way and that’s why many quit, which is logical. The animals are the worst effected of all. They get treated like rubbish and not like living beings. The consumers also get effected indirectly, because they eat this meat. I don’t think this meat can be very healthy for them. I think that we as the consumers should think twice befor we buy these ‘kiloknallers’.

Welfare state models: the perfect balance?

The Netherlands is a welfare state which means the government plays an active role in ensuring the welfare and the well being of people. There are three welfare models: the Scandinavian model, the Anglo-Saxon model and the Rhineland model. They differ in the way of how the government interferes with the citizen’s way of living. An important aspect is the solidarity concept, but what should the level of solidarity be?

The model that has the most government interference is the Scandinavian model. The keyword is flexicurity: a flexible labour market with a strong social security system. The ideology of this model is that everybody deserves a good basic life.

Some advantages of this system are that people can find another job easily, and if it takes a longer while the unemployed get a training course available. During the unemployment they get good benefits on the term that you keep training to get a new job. Because of these factors the people are never unemployed for a long period of time. The people also get high benefits and a substantial parental leave of 96 days. There are also great efforts made in the education and child care which results in a relatively high participation of women in the labour market.

The same flexicurity principle also causes disadvantages such as the easy dismissal of employees because of the flexible labour market. Another disadvantage is the heavy tax burden caused by the high benefits and long maternity leave. The long- lasting maternity leave is also a disadvantage for the companies. You are well treated by the government but it comes at a cost.

The Anglo-Saxon model is almost the opposite of the Scandinavian model. In this model the goal is to create a good entrepreneurial climate. To make this possible they have set up a flexible labour market, so the wages are determined by the market forces. Liberal values such as freedom and self sufficiency are considered important. The social security system is minimal and so is the interference of the government. The ideology is that the people who are successful should be rewarded and the people who are not should accept the consequences.

The advantages of this system are that you do not have to pay many taxes and premiums. This results in an enormous possibility for economic growth; you can really be successful (with your company). Once you have made it, you are rewarded with the fact you have to pay fewer taxes than the people with a regular loan.

The advantages also come with some disadvantages: the fact that you do not have to pay many taxes and premiums has the consequence that the social security is minimal and that there are not many collective services. You need to pay for many things yourself such as the healthcare and the education. Some people can not afford paying for all these facilities which causes a big gap in the living standards between rich and poor. People also have to work very hard to be able to pay for all the private facilities. They are also afraid to get fired, because there is almost no social security, so then you are on your own.

The model that is a kind of combination of the Scandinavian and the Anglo-Saxon model, is the Rhineland model. This model has got a big collective sector and a harmonious collaboration between the government, the employers’ organizations and the trade unions. Social security plays an important role in this model. The ideology is that there should be a right division between the amount of taxes paid and the role of social security and the collective sector.

The advantages of this model are the fact that the employees are well protected against the risk of dismissal and illness. There are unemployment benefits implemented via the UWV. There are retirement premiums so you can continue to have a good income after your retirement.

This system comes with some disadvantages as well such as the fact that women do not benefit well from the retirement premiums because those are based on the time you have worked for a company. The education and child care is not as well regulated as it is in the Scandinavian countries. The taxes and premiums are increasing, but the benefits for the people are not, which results in an increasing opposition of the Rhineland model.

The article clearly promotes the Scandinavian model by presenting arguments and examples of the good sides of the Scandinavian model. The article already starts off with “generous social benefits are not always a barrier to high employment rates”. This shows off in the fact that the highest employment rates are in the countries with the highest taxes and the most generous welfare system. This is caused by the public services such as subsidized child and elderly care, the generous sick leave policies, good education and the cheap and accessible transportation. These are all part of a well-working welfare plan: it is more important in which way the money is spent rather than how much is spent. The article keeps comparing the Scandinavian model to the Anglo-Saxon model which is used in America by presenting examples how America could stimulate the people in another way than with low taxes. Instead they could use the social system to promote working. The article wants to make clear that a way that makes it is easier to work, causes more people to start working. The Scandinavian government policy is a good example of this because they do everything to make it as easy as possible to work.

My personal preference would be the Scandinavian welfare system. This is because this system makes sure everybody has a good basic life and many people work. You do have to pay high taxes but the government also rewards you with many benefits such as the subsidized child care, the extensive parental leave, the good education, a high minimum wage and cheap and accessible transportation.

The people are also stimulated more to work because they want to do something back for their country; they are very grateful for all the benefits, so they would not dare to cheat on the system. This welfare system is very well organized because many people work and in that way the government costs can be divided over a big number of people—> the costs per person drop considerably. Actually it is a reenforcing circle: thanks to those benefits you are able to work more/ they make it easier to work and so you are able to pay the high taxes.

The Anglo-Saxon model is in my opinion the survival of the fittest. The people are either treated very well or very badly. People are living in horrible circumstances under the poverty line in America, which is a shame for a Western world country!

The Rhineland model is trying to find a balance between the Anglo- Saxon model and the Scandinavian model but the result is a suboptimal solution in my opinion.

Models of welfare

There is a lot of criticism on the welfare state in the Netherlands. But is this way the best way to practise the welfare state, or is there another possibility? 

We know the following 3 models of welfare:

1. The Scandinavian model:

This model is based on flexicurity: flexible labour in combination with a strong social security system. Child care and education are considered important, and there’s a lot of attention for unemployment.

These values lead to some advantages: there are good benefits for unemployed and there are training programmes for them if they are unemployed for a long time which helps them to become part of the labour market again; there are high efforts in the field of education and childcare which gives the effect that all people are good educated; there is an extensive parental leave (of 96 weeks) which gives parents time to spend with their children; the working market is flexible and working is promoted.

But these advantages also lead to disadvantages: there is a heavy collective tax burden because of all the benefits, and the high costs for childcare and education.

2. The Anglo-Saxon model

The Anglo-Saxon model is based on liberal values. Self-sufficiency, freedom and private initiative are important values. There’s no extensive social security system. Instead, it gives attention to the entrepreneurial climate.

Of course this leads to low premiums and just a few taxes, which are much lower than in the Scandinavian model.

But on the other hand, the lack of an extensive security system means education and healthcare should be paid by yourselves. This means many people have a lack of good education and bad healthcare. Also it is difficult for unemployed people to get back in the labour market.

3. The Rhineland model

The Rhineland model is a combination of the first 2 models. It contains a free market supported by a well-developed collective sector. Social security is considered to be important. It spends attention on the harmonious collaboration between the government, employers’ organisations and trade unions.

The well-developed collective sector leads to the benefit of protection against the risk of dismissal or illness. Because of the combination, the collective sector is still not as extensive as in the Scandinavian model which means the taxes are also lower.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of protest against this model; there’s not as much solidarity as hoped, education and childcare is not as good as in the Scandinavian model, and it is expensive: taxes are increasing which puts the model under pressure.

 

In the article, the researchers clearly try to promote the Scandinavian model, giving lots of arguments. The title is already gives you a clue about their opinion: “Generous social benefits are not always a barrier to high employment rates”. With this article they want to counter the (incorrect) argument which claims that high benefits will demotivate people to find a job because they get money anyway; an argument often used by opponents of the Scandinavian model. In the text the researchers give facts and arguments which show the efficiency of the Scandinavian model. Also they try to find ways to implant norms of the Scandinavian model into countries with different models to improve their situation. Also it tells stories of people in the different models which make clear the situations and the rate of efficiency of the model in the situation, for example using the story of the Norwegian Marianne Hillestad of Steinberg; a woman with children benefiting from the Scandinavian model: she can continue working because of the benefits the governments provides for day care for her children.

 

My opinion

I prefer the Scandinavian model.

You pay a lot of taxes and premiums, but that all pays off. Every person benefits from the extensive social security sector through-out its life. To start with, Scandinavian countries are one of the best countries on the field of education in the world. Every citizen benefits from this because everyone can attend school, even higher education. Also there’s a low unemployment rate thanks to the unemployment programmes including training. The government pays a lot of attention on keeping the unemployment rate low. This is an important advantage on this time of crisis. This is the only model which can actually respond to unemployment well. The Anglo-Saxon model has little attention and solutions for unemployment. There are nearly to none benefits for unemployed which leaves them with troubles to find a job and money problems. The Rhineland model doesn’t have a collective sector which is strong enough to solve the problem of unemployment either. But if they raise the taxes every time unemployment increases, obviously working people paying higher and higher taxes will start protesting. Besides, the Scandinavian model has a flexible working market which is easily accessible for working parents because of the attention for child care. This combination makes sure that, especially in the first couple of years of the child, the parents can spend enough time with it due to the extensive parental leave, but they can also still continue a successful (full-time) job without having enormous costs for day care.

So, as I said; the Scandinavian model seems to be expensive but this all pays off in good conditions and advantages for everyone.

 

Welfare State

There are three models of welfare state that we know. The three models are the Scandinavian model, the Anglo-Saxon model, and the Rhineland or corporatist model.

The Scandinavian model is about a combination of a flexible labour market and a strong social security system. The flexible labour market will take care that people can find another job without much trouble. But if this will go wrong and people stay unemployed for a longer time, then they will get an individual training course. It will also allow for the easy dismissal of employees. The social security is reflected in the high benefits and the extensive parental leave for small children. So for example, maternity leave is 96 weeks compared to 16 weeks in the Netherlands.            The disadvantage about this is that the Scandinavian people have to bear a heavy collective tax burden. This is mainly due to the high costs and efforts of child care and education. This facilities are connected with that the level of women’s participation in labour market are a lot higher.

 

The Anglo-Saxon model doesn’t have an extensive social security because liberal values like self sufficiency, freedom and private initiative are more important. The government gives priority to a good entrepreneurial climate. That means that the wages are determined by market forces and a flexible labour market gives impulses to employment, so many problems will disappear. Most of the people work very hard. The disadvantage is that the people have to pay the healthcare and education by themselves. Many of these countries with this model have private schools and health clinics. But on the other hand, the collective sector is much smaller than in the Netherlands. The government spends less and the people pay far fewer taxes and premiums.

 

The Rhineland or corporatist model is a combination of the two models. The free market is strictly contained by a well-developed collective sector. There is a good collaboration between the government, the employers’ organisations and the trade unions. Social security is an important part of the collective sector. The basic principle of the social partners is that employees are well protected against the risk of dismissal or illness. Workers pay their pension premiums without protest, so they have a good income after they retire. The disadvantage of this system is that it is not very fair and it also doesn’t show much solidarity. Right now, this model is under pressure. Because the costs of the welfare state has increased and in the recent years political choices have been moving us away from this model toward the Anglo-Saxon one.

The three researches prefer the Scandinavian  model. Because they are mostly talking about that the high employment rate. The percentage in Denmark from people with a job is 10 percent higher than in the United States. The argument that Henrik Jacobsen use is that more people may work when countries offer public services that directly make working easier. So if the goal is to get more people working, what is important about a social welfare plan may be more about what the money is spent on than how much is spent. The researches also make clear that it is better for the United States if they use its social safety to encourage Americans to work. So that means that more direct aid to the working poor could help Americans into the labour force more effectively than the tax credits that have been used for the last generation.

The researchers are clarifying the Scandinavian countries with their heavily subsidized child care. Despite that it costs a lot, it is easier for the parents to take off work to care for a sick child. So there are a lot of advantages of the high taxes. The Scandinavian countries are controlled better than for example the united States.

I would prefer the Scandinavian model. Most of people who argue about this model are always talking about the heavy collective tax burden. I understand that, but it also gives a lot of advantages. If you look at the 20 happiest countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries are all at the top. You can easily take a bigger risk in countries with a Scandinavian model. If you want for example make a world trip and you come back and want to start working again, it is a lot easier to find a job without much trouble. I really like the rule that if you are unemployed for a longer period, they give you an individual training course. This ensures that only a very small percentage of the workforce is unemployed for any length of time. That also means that when you have to pay a heavy collective burden, you don’t have the idea that you are paying for someone who is too lazy to do anything to earn some money. I think we really got this problem in the Netherlands. Especially the foreign people. They think, why would we work, we surely get a payment from the government. But that is my view about the people who doesn’t work unless they can’t work anymore. So the Scandinavian model really encourage you to start working and earn the money by yourself. But the model is really well organized, so you really get something where you have paid for by taxes when you need something. So the model gives me a safer feeling. They really take care of you when you are in trouble with for example your children or job. I think that this is also the reason why people a lot happier than in for example the United States.

Your ideal welfare state

In the article ‘How welfare and jobs can coexist’ published by the New York Times they talk about their ideal of a welfare state. To understand what your ideal is you have to know what a welfare state is. A welfare state is a state in which the government plays an active role to ensure the welfare and well-being of the people. There are 3 different models of a welfare state.

The first one is the Scandinavian model. The Scandinavian model is a combination of a flexible labour market and a strong social security system. The government is active in maintaining the welfare and well-being of people. There are upsides and downsides of this model.

The upsides are:

• Good, high benefits if unemployed
• You can find another job, if unemployed, without much trouble
• If your unemployed you receive a training course
• Extensive parental leave for parents with smaller children
• Subsidized care for children
• High level of women’s participation, because of the high costs and efforts in the field of child care and education

The downsides are:

• You have to pay high taxes
• Easy dismissal of employees

The second model is the Anglo-Saxon model. This model does not have extensive social security and think liberal values are very important. As a consequence the government is pretty passive. The emphasis is laid on a good entrepreneurial climate: wages are determined by market forces and a flexible labour market give impulse to employment. Here there are also pros and cons:

Pros

• People work very hard. This means they are determined to earn a good salary.
• The government’s spending is lower than in most countries
• Low taxes and premiums

Cons

• Government doesn’t interfere much
• Education and health care is something the people should pay for themselves.
• No equal opportunities

The last model is the Rhineland model. This model is a mix of the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon model. This means that the free market is strictly contained, but that there is also a well-developed collective sector. Like the other two models this one has his advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages

• Employees are well protected against the risk of dismissal and illness.
• They pay pension premiums, so they have an income when retired

Disadvantages

• The pension premium system didn’t turn out to be fair, because it is based on how long the employee has worked
• Women are not treated as equal as men
• Education and childcare are not as well regulated

In the article they clearly prefer the Scandinavian model above the others. They strongly highlight that the employment rate is much higher than in most countries. The sentence, ’More people may work when countries offer public services that directly make work easier,’ reflects their statement that the Scandinavian model is the best model and that we should take it as an example. In the article he also mentions some things that the other models do well, but always counters with a good argument why it isn’t as good as in the Scandinavian model. This makes his point of view even stronger.

Of all the welfare models I would prefer the Scandinavian model, like the researcher in the article. Within this model you have to pay high taxes, but the things you get back for it are really beneficial. You get really good education, good healthcare, subsidized care for children and much more. There are many positive things within this model. The only downsides are that you have to pay high taxes and that you easily could be dismissed as an employee. As I said before you get good things back for the high taxes and if dismissed you can easily find another job, because of the flexibility within the labour market. The Anglo-Saxon is my least favourite model, because you have to pay for your own healthcare and education. People that don’t have a lot of money can’t afford their children to go to a good school or afford a good healthcare insurance. This isn’t really fair and creates unequal opportunities. In the Netherlands we have the Rhineland model. This model is a mix of the other two models. What I don’t like about this model is that women are not treated that equally. Women work less than men, because they most of the time take care of the children. The pension premiums are based on how long you work, so most of the time women get lower pension premiums. In short, I would prefer the Scandinavian model, because I think healthcare and education are the most important things in society. The Scandinavian model provides this very well and as a consequence this has that the employment rate is so high (table in article) and this is of course very good for the development of society.