Take a look at Dallas Morning News' columnist Steve Blow's article that appeared in Sunday's paper (10/9/05). You can access it at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/
columnists/sblow/stories/DN-blow_09met.ART0.North.
Edition2.41f9e58.html.
The title gets you to the main point: "Doctor prescribing national health plan."
We are way past due for a just, common sense response to what is becoming a national health crisis. What we need is a comprehensive, national health care program.
Recently, someone posted to this blog the retort that everyone can find health care in the United States, what with all of the free/charity clinics and the emergency rooms of hospitals.
What was not mentioned was the quality of care, the cost of care under our current system and the almost complete lack of attention to preventive medicine among the poor.
Blow's article nails the issue by drawing an experienced healthcare provider to the debate.
Read the article.
Not only is our current system unfair, it is not smart.
Consider a fact and a myth.
First the myth.
Lots of people contend that the government cannot efficiently administer anything.
Simply not true.
Currently, the U. S. government administers Medicaid, Medicare and Veterans Administation health care products, and it does so very efficiently.
Now the fact.
Administrative costs for Medicare, the national health plan for senior citizens, amounts to 3 cents of every dollar spent.
Care to venture a guess as to the administrative costs associated with private insurance?
Twenty-five cents of every dollar paid in private insurance premiums goes to administrative expenses.
Let's be honest.
What we have in this country is health care viewed as a consumable, a market commodity. Not only is our approach not cost effective, it is not right.
Our results in terms of overall national health and wellness measures, as compared to the rest of the world, are pathetic.
We need a comprehensive national plan for everyone. I can see the need daily in the heart of the city.
Once that plan is in place, if the ultra-wealthy want to buy more, let them.
But for now, let's step up and do the moral thing.
7 comments:
Larry, thanks so much for your words at the Zoe conference. I know that you were talking to the right audience...mostly white people who could afford to come to an expensive conference, stay in a hotel, eat out and fly to get there...yes, we are comfortable but we forget that. We have to stop planning and meeting and really do something...just get out there...it is simpler than most think and the problems are deeper than most think they are. I told you this at the conference but I will say it again...thank you for continually putting poverty out in front of us. We need to be reminded.
grace and peace to you, Julie
c hand, I didn't intend to make assumptions about your life, any more than you were making assumptions about low-income working people. To be honest, I didn't agree with your post nor did I like it!
People make bad choices--that would be all people, including the two of us. Agree?
What is fundatmentally different for many is that when in poverty the real costs of bad choices are much more extreme than when protected from the full impact of bad choices by wealth.
Come with our lawyers to the court house and see how the poor do compared to the rich.
Comments like yours make we want to ask, "How many poor people do you really know?" Please hear my tone here--it is not harsh, but honestly curious. I also want to respond with questions like, "Where are you on the economic ladder?" Have you been poor? Was your family poor? Again, just honest inquiry to ascertain where you are coming from experientially and to give you a chance to "testify" more fully.
Thanks for posting. By the way, to work for justice cannot be wrong if you take scripture seriously.
This is a serious question. What is the definition of "poor"?
My observation is that most CRONIC poverty is caused by poor choices (individual, group, and government),
famine, disease, and most of all, by poor women having babies that they have no way of providing for. Unless I am very badly mistaken, there are far more poor people in the world today that there has ever been and that number grows DAILY.
If one views poverty as a "problem", it would seem logical to try to reduce the occurrence/incidence of the problem. Should one aspect of
"helping the poor" be instruction in birth control?
Is their an "unalienable right to breed" and an unending obligation for others to pay for the needs of the offspring? A yes answer to that question would appear to be the basic assumption of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". One could reasonably ask: Was a "Great Society" produced by this governmental initiative?
Thanks for all of the posts. Let me try to do them justice, no pun intended!
c hand, I'll try to answer your questions and respond to your comments first. You asked if I agreed with the statements that follow in quotes:
"1) Other people's power to screw up their lives is far greater than anyone elses power to save them." I think this is likely often the case, but I see very little connection to the lives of people I am around daily here in the city. Take my friend, Nonis. She is past 60, she is African American. She is poor. I am certain she has made her share of mistakes, just as I have. Problem is because she was black when she was 16, she didn't have the educational opportunities like another woman I know who happens to be white and who is the same age and has been a school teacher for decades. Nonis made no bad choice. Her life simply is. What most people refuse to weight properly are the "choices forced" on people due to systemic realities. We can see it in family systems counseling, but we refuse to see it in social realities because that would place our achievements in their proper light--some of us enjoy privilege through no merit of our own--I was born white. While others of us "enjoy" great disadvantage due to no fault of our own. This is just a fact.
"2) A just society will have inequalities because people make unequal choices." Again, see answer to above #1. Some people have limited options/choices while others have almost limitless choices.
"3) America is the worst country on Earth except for every other country on Earth (it's the greatest country)." I don't recall even addressing this issue, but I think it is important that you do. Here is what "patriots" fail to see. The ability to be critical of self and one's own nation is essential to the survival of democracy. Take the issue and I will visit with you about our America is doing. In terms of violence, incarseration rates, overall public health, we rank way down the list--if you want to talk about hard data and not just warm, fuzzy, sentimental partiotism. These are established, empricial facts.
Now, let's move to the statements you made in your second post:
"1) yes, all people will err in their choices, but in drastically different proportions. If you don't understand this I wonder how much 'help' you could offer anyone, much less the poor who really need it."
You miss my point completely. I understand what you are saying. What you don't understand is how protected people like you and I are from the consequences of our bad choices and how protected we are by our advantage from even making or facing bad choices. To mimic your attitude just here--and forgive me--if you don't understand this basic reality, I wonder how seriously to take any of your comments and I wonder what you're afraid of?
"2) yes, Money will spend.(are you upset that OJ got away with double murder partly because he had money)"
I have no idea what your point is here, except to say I now recoginize that you are angry with me. I am sorry if I upset you. I don't recall ever saying anything about OJ?
"3) yes, I have 'poor' credentials. Currenty I'm somewhat economically comfortable but still feel the need to bargain shop, delay gratification, go second class...etc."
So, I can assume that some of your good friends are very low-income, correct? And that you spend a good bit of your time in their homes and that you understand their struggles and that you share your opinions with them openly?
"4) yes, I'm pro justice, Somehow I think your definition of the word may stand it's traditional meaning on it's head. (justice is blind)"
Here we really part ways. Justice in the biblical sense of the word is anything but blind. When I say justice, I am talking about the matters Luke addresses throughout his gospel. I am talking about the systemic, collective, government provisions of the Law of Moses. I am talking about standing over against the oppressive systems that keep the poor poor. If you haven't encountered this reality in American life, I am not sure you can understand me.
You say you have a personal responsibility to be merciful and generous. That is good. Does that responsibility extend to joining with others to build justice and fairness to as great extent as possible into the social, political and economic fabric of the society?
_____________
Now, anonymous, let me get to your comments.
"My observation is that most CRONIC poverty is caused by poor choices (individual, group, and government),famine, disease, and most of all, by poor women having babies that they have no way of providing for."
See my comments above about choices in general.
"If one views poverty as a "problem", it would seem logical to try to reduce the occurrence/incidence of the problem. Should one aspect of
"helping the poor" be instruction in birth control? Is their an 'unalienable right to breed' and an unending obligation for others to pay for the needs of the offspring?"
This is a complicated subject. Yes, I believe family planning is needed among the poor, both in the US and abroad.
At the same time, I believe upper class and middle class people don't have a clue about family structures, culture and the norms of many very poor persons, especially in the Third World. Here in inner city Dallas I have had heart breaking conversations with young women who are fairly well on their own, isolated and without purpose who turn to sex and to "having a baby" as a way to address their basic "aloneness." This is not an attempt to defend them or their actions, but it is a signal that most of us have not idea of the despair or of the reality facing very low-income teens. Relationships, education, economic uplift, redefining male leadership, opportunity and hope-- all will be part of the solution.
"A yes answer to that question would appear to be the basic assumption of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society.' One could reasonably ask: Was a 'Great Society' produced by this governmental initiative?"
I try to answer this over and over again. First, let me say with all due respect, you have your history all wrong. LBJ's Great Society lasted about 2 years due to the upturn in spending for the Viet Nam war. The little recognized result of his program was the lifting of an entire generation of African Americans into the middle class, to say nothing of lifting millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. Check the facts on the impact his program had on poverty in real numbers--you will be shocked. The problem was not the program, the problem was we stopped. You have bought the now clearly documented, classic urban myth of the Reagan era--the "welfare Cadillac."
Ironically, thanks to LBJ and Nixon's success in social programs, the black middle class left the cities, along with the whites. Funding since 1980 had been steadily cut back. Suburban escape and sprawal unfolded. What is left is the poverty of the core cities.
___________________
Now, Epic--thanks for posting. I'll try to get to what you say.
"Sometimes I respond negatively to the idea of 'Social Justice1 because it seems often to be used as codewords for redistribution of wealth. Justice should mean to receive what you deserve. Sometimes bad decisions mean people deserve bad rewards."
Again, your definition of justice is not biblical, which is where I am coming from. Read the OT on the notion of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8ff). This is a provision to do exactly what you fear here! Redistribution of wealth because everything belongs to God, nothing to us and because while we control what God owns, people don't get their fair share because we are corrupt, greedy and our systems tend to oppress the weak. This is actually what the Bible says! Just for grins, read Luke 1:46-55--the Song of Mary--talk about shaking up the system! This was to be the destiny of the child she carried--out-of-wedlock. Go on to Luke 4:16ff and you will hear this child, now grown up, quoting Isa. 61--a great Jubilee text.
"Finally, the idea that the Government can do a good job of providing healthcare is hard to believe. Our war on poverty seems to have been an abject failure. Perhaps it is time for more of us to dive in and help each other without imposing a government solution. It seems to me that CDM does that well, much better than a beaurocrat could do it."
Sorry, Epic, but I couldn't disagree more. The fact is Medicare, a govt run program, is providing excellent health care for people like my parents. And at a fraction of the admin costs of private insurance. Mediciad, if it could be fully funded, would be doing the same--and does an excellent job with what we give it to work with.
We have an anti-govt bias at work in this country that has become laughable to the world and detrimental to our national well-being. This is just a fact.
On the War on Poverty, see my comments above and read a good history on the period.
Thanks for your nice comments about CDM, but we can't possibly go to scale here. Only a national, collective solution can do that.
Speaking of beauracracy--ever try to file an insurance claim with a private carrier? No different, if as efficient or as good, as Medicare.
Larry,
I believe that if you will check closely, NEITHER Medicare nor Medicaid provide any healthcare at all. They only PAY for the provision of healthcare which is provided by others.
As to anti-government bias, is it any wonder when one reads in today's Houston Chronicle that 'dear ole FEMA" ((your federal tax dollars at work) is spending $120,000 for a family of four to spend six months on a cruise ship! This was after spending $100 Million (NOT A MISPRINT) to buy and transport ICE after Hurrricane Katrina which ended up "going nowhere" except into frozen storage facilities all over the eastern half of the U. S. One trucker was paid $15,100 to haul around and sit parked for days with one truckload.
It is interesting to me how you can know, who I know, what I know, what I know about history, where I have traveled and/or lived, what I have experienced, what I have bought into, what I believe, etc. Are you pyschic or are your own biases and pre-conceived notions showing?
If you read your own post carefully you will note that you acknowledge several times that "choices" people make are very significant.
Anonymous, I understand that regular docs provide the care. Just as in private insurance companies--that was a foregone conclusion, I assumed. My point is that federally administered health programs are more efficient than private payers--that is a fact.
I haven't seen the Houston paper, but I don't doubt what you say. Nor is my contention that govt programs are always efficient. I do believe it is unfair to judge govt healthcare efforts by FEMA's recent performance. And let me add, it has not always been this way with FEMA. But that is another issue.
Most govt waste relates to how govt spends money with big business, not how it serves the citizens. . .we could talk about Pentegon and highway contracts just here, couldn't we?
As to what you say I claimed in terms of knowledge about you, I must say I don't know what you refer to. I made no such claims.
I will readily admit that I have my own biases, but I wasn't intending to claim to understand anything about your experience. Sorry to have offended you, if indeed I did.
As to choices, I certainly know and understand that people make bad choices. We all do. Choices have consequences. Based on economic status, the impact of the same choice made in two different neighborhoods can be quite different both short term and long term. Just a fact.
Thanks for posting!
epic: "I respond negatively to the idea of "Social Justice" because it seems often to be used as codewords for redistribution of wealth. Justice should mean to receive what you deserve"
What do you deserve?
Do you "deserve" your material wealth? is it really YOURS? Or does it belong to God, and God's people. . . and you are but the steward?
Be careful with your thoughts on the matter. This is not simply about having the right opinions and then going about your merry way. This is about having the right compass to navigate your merry way.
Post a Comment