laura (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} shinyobject) wrote,@ 2007-12-24 19:19:00 |
|
poverty and healthcare rant
I definitely don't believe in "From each according to his ability; from each according to his needs." That idea would lead to everyone competing to be seen as the neediest and most unproductive. If you know that every completed task will just result in another one assigned, while a neglected task will result in free time, where's the incentive to work? Welfare works in the same way-- in the absence of a desire to earn what you are given, you get quotes like:
"What, [16-yearold son]? You got a job?!? Don't you go fucking up my welfare!!" (true quote)
These people ruin things for those who are actually in need of assistance through no fault of their own. Hard workers get laid off, scapegoats are needed, bosses' sons get the job, etc. Bankruptcy ruins your credit for a decade. Things are actually a lot more expensive for the poorest people. Example:
Joe earns $60 a day as a waiter. He has no friends or family, and no car. Where does he live?
A. a $300/month apartment
B. a $30/night motel (= $900/month)
Answer: B
Because Joe doesn't have $300. He certainly doesn't have first and last month's rent and a security deposit, or any credit. He does have $30/day.
Joe could spend $50/month on rice and beans, cooking them himself. But he doesn't, he spends $5/day eating at the restaurant he works at, ($150/month) because his motel room doesn't have a kitchen.
If Joe had a car, and it was a piece of shit and broke, and the repairs cost $300 to keep it running for another month, he would pay that because getting a "new" car costs $1000. Or he would just not be able to fix it, and lose his job for lack of a way to work.
And so on, with every aspect of Joe's life. He's lucky though, at least he has a job, and no kids or other dependents. Ever try to get a job when you smell like you live on the streets? And he doesn't drink or smoke or do drugs, though the miserable lifestyle of poverty results in these expensive habits for many if not most poor people. As it is he could theoretically save $10/day for a month and be able to afford a shitty apartment.
What happens when they find out that Joe has a heart condition because the cheeseburger costs $5 and the salad costs $7 where he works, so that's what he eats?
Or a simpler problem, what happens when he breaks his leg falling down stairs?
First of all, he can no longer work.
He doesn't have the option to just live with his affliction, as many poor people do. A broken leg will indeed kill you if not treated, or at least leave you crippled for life. He goes into debt, ensuring that he will probably be poor for the next several years. And you wonder why homeless people play the lottery.
Children do poorly in school for lack of school supplies, or because they're expected to babysit their younger siblings while their mom works her second job in the evenings. They don't go on field trips because they cost $10. They don't have friends because they can't go to movies, or buy food at the mall, or because they wear used clothes.
The beauty of our system is that libraries are free, and schools are free (except for supplies, time, etc.). Doing well in school allows many to go to college for free. Doing well there allows many to get good jobs.
See, the thing is, I was lucky. And it's stupid things that resulted in me being here, at a computer, with a firm grasp on the English language, studying at a great school. Even if I am forty grand in debt. Like, the fact that I chose to read all the time since I had no friends, instead of getting into trouble. The fact that my mom worked at a library, though she did spend several years working shitty jobs even with her degree. Like, answering calls at the Water Board. Imagine being cursed at hundreds of times a day by people whose water was shut off because they didn't pay the bill. I won't even go into the frustration my dad is still going through.
But still-- I didn't take two or three AP tests I could have aced, because they each cost $82. And the only reason I'm at UofC is because ASMS was free. Oh, and owning a computer before my sophomore year of college would've been nice. Visiting colleges before choosing one would have been nice. And though working and not having certain things has, I think, given me valuable perspective, it's still the case that my friends who don't have to work during college tend to do better than those who do. An extra 15 hours a week goes a long way, not to mention the stress that comes with worrying about money all the time.
I remember this one girl, Allison, telling me "My parents are paying for you to go to college." I wanted to punch her. "Why should my parents be punished for working hard and saving money?" Because why would you get a discount on something you can afford to pay for? Why should the limited amount of financial aid not go to those who need it? Fucking bitch.
She was also the one who thinks people who rent are "stupid" because, obviously, her parents bought her a condo so she won't have to "throw away" money in rent, so everybody should be able to do that. She's one of the ones I'm writing to, though she'll never read this. She's someone who thinks that if you work hard and are intelligent, money automatically falls into your lap, and that if you're poor you don't deserve an education. Or Jana from asms who thinks her $100,000/year family is "lower middle class." I don't think rich people are bad, just that many of them have this Social Darwinism thing going on. When people adopt whatever philosophy serves to justify their luxuries, when people convince themselves that they *need* and deserve all these luxuries, and yet somehow people who work longer and harder hours need and deserve extremely little, that's what gets to me.
I understand why CEOs and movie stars make millions while much more difficult and valuable jobs like teaching at public schools pay little. The fact is that maybe a dozen people can do what Brad Pitt or Bill Gates do as well as they can, and these talents make millions and billions of dollars for their companies. But they certainly don't work *harder* than teachers or fast-food, factory, or construction workers, and it takes the same amount of food and water and shelter to keep them alive.
-sigh-
We need a system that gives a limited amount of aid to those who need it, and education and healthcare for everyone as much as they need. Those who can afford luxuries should pay this cost. Personally though, I'd just drastically raise the taxes of vacations, luxury cars and boats and houses, fine dining, etc. to raise this money rather than taxing income directly. I don't think jobs that pay less than $10/hour should be taxed at all, since anyone working them would get it refunded at the end of the year anyway. I think Congress shouldn't have the power to vote themselves raises every year while keeping the minimum wage steady for a decade.
Most of all though, I think that instead of the current healthcare system, wherein doctors are either encouraged to cover their asses by ordering bunches of expensive and unnecessary tests, or obliged to spend as little time and money per patient as possible without overtly breaking the Hippocratic Oath. We need a system that's based on results-- that is, healthy patients at the end of the day, both by the patient's satisfaction and by objectively verifiable measures. Hospitals are rated this way, so why aren't insurance companies?
Monetary rewards for losing weight, or staying at your ideal weight, would help.
Subsidies for growing, transporting, and selling healthy foods. Stop advertising candy and sugary cereals to kids, just like we nixed cigarette ads.
And tax breaks for people who volunteer their time to help others. I'd love it if the rich had more contact with the poor, rather than just writing checks, though that's important too.
And for the love of God, fund medical research. As it is, big pharma *has* to charge ungodly prices for their drugs, otherwise how would they pay for years of trial and error and the time of qualified employees? They know they'll go generic within a few years, and you can't expect them to operate at a loss. Healthy citizens are invaluable to the economy. Connecting monetary incentives and the ideal of healthy people will profit everyone in the end, it's just how to start the ball rolling that I don't kow how to do. Politicians can't get elected by promising socialized healthcare at the cost of raising taxes, because the rich are the ones that donate to their campaigns and compose Congress. Hmm.
I definitely don't believe in "From each according to his ability; from each according to his needs." That idea would lead to everyone competing to be seen as the neediest and most unproductive. If you know that every completed task will just result in another one assigned, while a neglected task will result in free time, where's the incentive to work? Welfare works in the same way-- in the absence of a desire to earn what you are given, you get quotes like:
"What, [16-yearold son]? You got a job?!? Don't you go fucking up my welfare!!" (true quote)
These people ruin things for those who are actually in need of assistance through no fault of their own. Hard workers get laid off, scapegoats are needed, bosses' sons get the job, etc. Bankruptcy ruins your credit for a decade. Things are actually a lot more expensive for the poorest people. Example:
Joe earns $60 a day as a waiter. He has no friends or family, and no car. Where does he live?
A. a $300/month apartment
B. a $30/night motel (= $900/month)
Answer: B
Because Joe doesn't have $300. He certainly doesn't have first and last month's rent and a security deposit, or any credit. He does have $30/day.
Joe could spend $50/month on rice and beans, cooking them himself. But he doesn't, he spends $5/day eating at the restaurant he works at, ($150/month) because his motel room doesn't have a kitchen.
If Joe had a car, and it was a piece of shit and broke, and the repairs cost $300 to keep it running for another month, he would pay that because getting a "new" car costs $1000. Or he would just not be able to fix it, and lose his job for lack of a way to work.
And so on, with every aspect of Joe's life. He's lucky though, at least he has a job, and no kids or other dependents. Ever try to get a job when you smell like you live on the streets? And he doesn't drink or smoke or do drugs, though the miserable lifestyle of poverty results in these expensive habits for many if not most poor people. As it is he could theoretically save $10/day for a month and be able to afford a shitty apartment.
What happens when they find out that Joe has a heart condition because the cheeseburger costs $5 and the salad costs $7 where he works, so that's what he eats?
Or a simpler problem, what happens when he breaks his leg falling down stairs?
First of all, he can no longer work.
He doesn't have the option to just live with his affliction, as many poor people do. A broken leg will indeed kill you if not treated, or at least leave you crippled for life. He goes into debt, ensuring that he will probably be poor for the next several years. And you wonder why homeless people play the lottery.
Children do poorly in school for lack of school supplies, or because they're expected to babysit their younger siblings while their mom works her second job in the evenings. They don't go on field trips because they cost $10. They don't have friends because they can't go to movies, or buy food at the mall, or because they wear used clothes.
The beauty of our system is that libraries are free, and schools are free (except for supplies, time, etc.). Doing well in school allows many to go to college for free. Doing well there allows many to get good jobs.
See, the thing is, I was lucky. And it's stupid things that resulted in me being here, at a computer, with a firm grasp on the English language, studying at a great school. Even if I am forty grand in debt. Like, the fact that I chose to read all the time since I had no friends, instead of getting into trouble. The fact that my mom worked at a library, though she did spend several years working shitty jobs even with her degree. Like, answering calls at the Water Board. Imagine being cursed at hundreds of times a day by people whose water was shut off because they didn't pay the bill. I won't even go into the frustration my dad is still going through.
But still-- I didn't take two or three AP tests I could have aced, because they each cost $82. And the only reason I'm at UofC is because ASMS was free. Oh, and owning a computer before my sophomore year of college would've been nice. Visiting colleges before choosing one would have been nice. And though working and not having certain things has, I think, given me valuable perspective, it's still the case that my friends who don't have to work during college tend to do better than those who do. An extra 15 hours a week goes a long way, not to mention the stress that comes with worrying about money all the time.
I remember this one girl, Allison, telling me "My parents are paying for you to go to college." I wanted to punch her. "Why should my parents be punished for working hard and saving money?" Because why would you get a discount on something you can afford to pay for? Why should the limited amount of financial aid not go to those who need it? Fucking bitch.
She was also the one who thinks people who rent are "stupid" because, obviously, her parents bought her a condo so she won't have to "throw away" money in rent, so everybody should be able to do that. She's one of the ones I'm writing to, though she'll never read this. She's someone who thinks that if you work hard and are intelligent, money automatically falls into your lap, and that if you're poor you don't deserve an education. Or Jana from asms who thinks her $100,000/year family is "lower middle class." I don't think rich people are bad, just that many of them have this Social Darwinism thing going on. When people adopt whatever philosophy serves to justify their luxuries, when people convince themselves that they *need* and deserve all these luxuries, and yet somehow people who work longer and harder hours need and deserve extremely little, that's what gets to me.
I understand why CEOs and movie stars make millions while much more difficult and valuable jobs like teaching at public schools pay little. The fact is that maybe a dozen people can do what Brad Pitt or Bill Gates do as well as they can, and these talents make millions and billions of dollars for their companies. But they certainly don't work *harder* than teachers or fast-food, factory, or construction workers, and it takes the same amount of food and water and shelter to keep them alive.
-sigh-
We need a system that gives a limited amount of aid to those who need it, and education and healthcare for everyone as much as they need. Those who can afford luxuries should pay this cost. Personally though, I'd just drastically raise the taxes of vacations, luxury cars and boats and houses, fine dining, etc. to raise this money rather than taxing income directly. I don't think jobs that pay less than $10/hour should be taxed at all, since anyone working them would get it refunded at the end of the year anyway. I think Congress shouldn't have the power to vote themselves raises every year while keeping the minimum wage steady for a decade.
Most of all though, I think that instead of the current healthcare system, wherein doctors are either encouraged to cover their asses by ordering bunches of expensive and unnecessary tests, or obliged to spend as little time and money per patient as possible without overtly breaking the Hippocratic Oath. We need a system that's based on results-- that is, healthy patients at the end of the day, both by the patient's satisfaction and by objectively verifiable measures. Hospitals are rated this way, so why aren't insurance companies?
Monetary rewards for losing weight, or staying at your ideal weight, would help.
Subsidies for growing, transporting, and selling healthy foods. Stop advertising candy and sugary cereals to kids, just like we nixed cigarette ads.
And tax breaks for people who volunteer their time to help others. I'd love it if the rich had more contact with the poor, rather than just writing checks, though that's important too.
And for the love of God, fund medical research. As it is, big pharma *has* to charge ungodly prices for their drugs, otherwise how would they pay for years of trial and error and the time of qualified employees? They know they'll go generic within a few years, and you can't expect them to operate at a loss. Healthy citizens are invaluable to the economy. Connecting monetary incentives and the ideal of healthy people will profit everyone in the end, it's just how to start the ball rolling that I don't kow how to do. Politicians can't get elected by promising socialized healthcare at the cost of raising taxes, because the rich are the ones that donate to their campaigns and compose Congress. Hmm.
