Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Reformation

I will never understand people who are all "America! Fuck yeah!" but against giving the government any money for anything.

I know I'm oversimplifying, but this is basically how I see it: I don't attend public schools or drive a car anymore, but schools and roads are essential to the functioning of this country, and I live in this country, and I want it to be a good one, so if my contribution helps, I don't mind supporting these things. You can't get all patriotically outraged that we're falling behind in the education rankings of the world and then complain that your school taxes are too high. As far as using the money properly, that's a different story. That's where voting and, you know, democracy, comes in. Get involved — do some research and let your representatives know how you want your money spent, instead of just robotically repeating that teachers get paid too much. Just remember that you can't please everybody, and the funding has to come from somewhere. Bake sales and car washes only cover so much.

So...healthcare. I admit up front that I am no expert on the particulars of this reform, but I don't understand how people could possibly be against the concept. Perhaps this is biased of me, but based on my own personal example, again, here's how I see it: The retail cost of my medication is approximately $500/month. Do I need this medication to save my life? No, it's not that drastic. Do I need this medication to have any sort of a life? Yes. If I am to remain a mentally healthy, functioning member of society, you want me on my meds. You need me on my meds. Can I afford this medication on my own without insurance? Not even close, and for that, I am grateful to have a job that gives me coverage. But if it didn't and I wasn't on the medication? Well, I could get a higher-paying job, but that's kind of hard in this economy, especially when your concentration is perpetually clouded and you're also suicidal. I could keep this job and get a second one to supplement my income, but that's also kind of rough when you find it hard enough to get out of bed for the one you already have due to dizzying headaches and crushing depression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be more of a drain on society if I were unemployed and catatonic, being completely supported by others, than if everyone chipped in a few extra bucks to help keep me and people like me medicated. I mean, I didn't ask for this to happen, and I didn't bring it on myself. I was born this way. I'm not asking for a handout — I want to work and support myself and contribute to society, but I can't...unless I'm taking these drugs.

I know it sounds a lot like welfare, another divisive issue. I realize the system is flawed and abused, but don't spite those who truly need it for the misdeeds of those who don't. At the very least, there needs to be some sort of interim program in place while working to improve and perfect the process. And to do that improving and perfecting? You need to get informed and involved.

If you want our country to be great, you have to make it so. We need to help each other out. Freedom isn't free.

9 comments:

  1. "I don't understand how people could possibly be against the concept."

    Assuming American people share general principles & values based on the acknowledgement that basic human rights must be respected, then there isn't a reasonable explanation to be against it.

    You get medical care because you have the right to get it, not because it's productive for society to keep you sane.
    You get medical care because you deserve the same opportunity to live with dignity, and equal opportunities to succeed.
    Only then you get to your productivity, but only as a by product.

    Healthcare, education, housing, employment. These are the foundations for a society based on equal opportunities.

    If those common principles don't exist, then we get ancient Sparta's style society where the 'non-productive' human beings should be left on a top of a mountain to die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said both of you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Dalia: I agree, completely, but a lot of the opposition I've heard is centered around taxes and government spending. People are pissed that they have to fork over "their" money to take care of these supposed unemployed deadbeats, instead of actually learning the facts and looking at the big picture. It's *not* based on the principles and values of human rights, it's all bottom-line and self-interest. That's the problem. But what do I know -- I'm a LIBRUL FACIST!!! :/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with you. I was speaking about the concept.

    If you're talking about the political discussion, let's just speak about those who actually understand the politics involved.
    Those who are concerned about taxes are not those in need of a reform. These oppositional voices come from those who have their medical needs covered.
    These are the politicians & lobbyists representing big corporations' interests.
    This is the so called neoliberalism (ruthless capitalism, hedonism, egoism... you name it).

    ReplyDelete
  5. A coherent argument (IMHO) from the other side is argued by Dr. Walter Williams here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Kent: So "Harry" should live a needlessly painful life and die of this easily treatable disease because his neighbors who by sheer chance were lucky enough to have been born healthy basically don't want to share and think Congress isn't the boss of them? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. The government isn't "robbing" us so Harry can buy a yacht or get elective plastic surgery here. The Constitution also guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- LIFE, and the OPPORTUNITY to pursue happiness, which is hard to do when your kidneys are failing. His argument may be logical, but only in theory, and pure theory isn't so effective when it comes to real people. Paying taxes in support of a HUMAN RIGHT is not slavery. Taxes are a neccessity. If you want to live in this country, you have to play by the rules. Slavery is more like having treatment withheld and being forced to suffer from a condition you had no say in contracting because your boss wants to cut down on his overhead.

    No offense, personally.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kent,

    Walter E. Williams' views are libertarian.
    He's very coherent on his arguments... so were the sophists in Greece.

    Walter E. Williams could be the king of Sparta, or better, the king of the jungle. The law of the strong over the weak.
    Because that is what happens when you let the forces of nature rule.

    Strength and weakness exist, and they both are pre-conditions (trendy concept). Therefore, there are no equal opportunities for people to succeed.

    "A person has a right only to what he earned..."
    Really, Mr.Williams?
    Does this apply to, let say, orphans?
    Does this rule apply to mentally retarded people?
    OK, I'm giving extreme examples.
    What about "Normal" healthy adult people - does Mr. Williams think everyone has the same opportunities to succeed? Should a person that didn't get an education be punished for that? Should that person perpetuate his lack of opportunities by not providing his family that same education? or healthcare? or food?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Dalia: I know Kent in real life. He's a good guy. Don't scare him away. :D

    Also, I agree with you.

    And also: SPAAARTAAA! :D

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, Spartaaaa!
    The origins of Nazism.

    ReplyDelete