The insurance system depends upon lots of people paying into it--and only a few needing it. Each person within the group parts with a little money, which gets added to a pool (of sorts). Then, this reserve is available to just a handful of people, who run into bad luck.
Throughout history, the biggest "benefit" of insurance was not a fat check or a drug plan or a hot rental car...it was peace of mind. In fact, if you didn't get compensated during the year, or decade, or even your whole life, you were happy. It meant you avoided tragedy, and your money went toward the less-fortunate members of your pool...
But if everybody needs compensation at the same time, the whole system collapses. Economics 101 says, "when all of us demand more than we contribute, there will not be enough to go around." To be clear, society's current interest in guaranteeing free stuff for everybody is not "insurance." This is the debt-encouraging, selfishness-inspiring system of "entitlement."
The latest Rally Cry of Entitled Citizens, of course, is that the government, insurance companies, and the Catholic Church "have no business telling me how to prevent a baby," which would be a great point if it had anything to do with the new government mandate regarding birth control.
However, the question is not whether I should be allowed to use contraceptives. It's "Who should pay for it?"
And, I think forcing the other pool-members, or your fellow tax-payer, or your Catholic employee to foot the bill is a little--um--selfish.
Some might argue: "But, Amanda, I pay for that health insurance policy," either because they genuinely don't understand what I said in the first paragraph, or they hope others don't. For those legitimately confused, I'll explain one more time: If you don't pay for the full cost of your service (dental cleaning, surgery, drugs, or whatever), then somebody else has to cover the difference.
Just because your copy of the bill says "$0" does not mean it's free. And just because a politician seeking reelection says the church is trying to "take away" your contraception, does not mean that's the truth. The only issue is, should others buy said contraception for you, just because you bought the talking points of other Entitled Citizens?
---
Miscellaneous Thought of a Related Topic #1: I recently saw another Rallying Cry on a message board which said, "People who can't afford birth control certainly can't afford a child!" I'd like to offer my regular readers the opportunity to respond to this before I do. :)
Miscellaneous Thought of a Related Topic #2: Contact me privately, if you're a married woman struggling to afford birth control and you want references for clinics willing to work with you. (They are funded through volunteers who are happy to help--not compelled by government mandate.)
If a woman can't afford birth control, or a baby, she can't afford to engage in behavior that might make a baby.
ReplyDeleteExactly! There is a very obvious form of birth control which ANYONE can afford... :)
DeleteUnfortunately, this generation challenges consequences at every turn. (As I said on Facebook, if we can't have our cake and eat it, too, then we think the cake is being taken from us.)
In reality, it's very simple and fair: have sex or don't have sex--but pay for your own choice.
What about when health insurance is used to pay for the medical bills necessary for a child? Just as those opposed to birth control coverage pay for birth control, those who believe in access to birth control end up paying for the health costs once the child is born. (Illness, the birth itself, NICU for preemies, various needs of children with disabilities, etc.) Do you believe that children born into poor families should not have access to healthcare? "Pay for yourself!" has serious consequences for innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts.
DeleteWouldn't prematurity and/or disabilities describe an unforeseen tragedy? They could, theoretically, be covered with insurance ahead of time. But, talking about the birth itself and Well Child visits, you're absolutely right. Any "preventative" care is like birth control: you can't insure against it when everybody uses it. Referencing an "innocent child" doesn't change the fact that it's not insurance...it's getting something for nothing. Here's a good read: (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/insuring-uninsurable/)
Anyway, your question is, "Do you believe children born into poor families should not have access to healthcare?" And my response is: of course they should have access. But, why should the burden be placed on insurance companies to support the disadvantaged? Eventually, insurers will be just as money-less as those innocent children, and then what will we do? My solution is simple, and two-fold.
First, everyone contributes something for their own healthcare--and it must *feel* like a sacrifice. Getting things for free doesn't make us appreciate the service, and it encourages more poor decisions (like having children we can't afford). So, whether it's money or time, people must earn all goods and services somehow.
Second, we need to do a better job giving exposure to the many free* clinics across the country (and I'm not just talking about Planned Parenthood, which is the only one people seem to know about.) These are places staffed and funded by people who agree--the only fair thing is to pay for yourself--but, out of love, they VOLUNTEER to give more than their own "fair" share. If you tell me where you're from, I'll give you the references of some places near you.
*I used an asterisk because these clinics are not strictly 'free.' They cost little-or-no money, but clients have to give something--especially time and responsibility. They work one-on-one with the person meeting their needs, which makes it easier to appreciate. And, some of the clients end up becoming volunteers once they get back on their feet.
I am not in need of free services because I've been lucky enough to buy into a healthcare plan, but thank you for the offer.
DeleteI question the use of "volunteered" hours because it is inherently unstable. I believe that access to healthcare is a human right (its in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is a really interesting document).
First of all, private organizations involve a dynamic of "we will help you if we decide to and if you do what we want" (which you sort of allude to). That's not to say that all private organizations regularly turn away people, but they are allowed to do that and they are often very limited by their funding.
On the flip side, let's consider the role of the volunteer. I don't think we have the luxury of deciding if we want to be part of our communities, particularly since those of us who do well have benefited from living in this society. Just as we are all linked by the economy (your success impacts my success) and our democracy, we are also all linked socially. I bring this up because your blog (from the little I've read) is about selfishness and service. Isn't it encouraging selfishness to say, "You have the choice of whether you want to give back to your community." I especially believe this because many people who do well in our communities have been born into privilege (this could be racial, socioeconomic, etc.). Despite how deeply I believe in the concept of the American Dream, statistics show that it is sadly not a reality (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-downward-path-of-upward-mobility/2011/11/09/gIQAegpS6M_story.html)
In fact, did you know that people in low-income brackets donate a larger percentage than wealthier brackets? I think this says a lot about our society. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html)
This also parallels an argument I read a lot, which is that instead of the State providing resources, the Church (whatever church that may be) is Biblically called to provide for the community. This is similar to my reaction to private organizations: Sure, the Church may be called to provide services, but often they are insufficient.
As a side note: Any "unforeseen" tragedy (premature birth, disability, regular illnesses that children get, like ear infections, injuries etc.) is still costing people who are not in need of the same portion of services because they choose to have fewer children. In other words, larger families are inherently and inevitably more expensive than smaller ones. Also, I disagree to an extent when you discuss "unforeseen" tragedy. There are screenings that can detect certain disabilities and congenital illnesses. Many people want to abort a fetus who tests positive for a severe disability (for example: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/rick_santorum_and_prenatal_testing_i_would_have_saved_my_son_from_his_suffering_.html). I respect a person's decision to keep a fetus who has a severe disability (I think that would be a terribly difficult decision and situation), but (just like birth control) it involves someone making a very personal choice that costs society (except that caring for a severely disabled child is much more expensive than birth control). I just think it's interesting that you focus on the cost of birth control, but not the significantly higher cost of other personal decisions.
Again, I appreciate the response. I admit, your comment is a little heavy for me to dive in and point out exactly where we agree/disagree. My 10-month-old is driving me up the wall tonight, and I'd like to write a brand new post before I go to bed.
DeleteBut, since you haven't read much of my stuff before, you may be interested in previous posts about how my religious and political beliefs intersect...
http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-sacrifice-my-personal-goal-but.html
http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-could-be-better-spent.html
The bottom line is, both you and I want to help as many people as possible. We just have different ideas about "how."
To summarize a bit:
ReplyDeleteI'm pointing out why I don't think your approach would work in practice, but it is couched in my belief that healthcare is a human right, not a charity-based perk. From what I've read, the wealthy donate less money (percentage-wise) and most community programs are underfunded. Therefore, I question how we can realistically give people the care they deserve, if funding is unstable and based on the whims of wealthier people who have no motivation to be selfless or care for the community. Given the documented lack of upward mobility in our society, I don't think we can blame low-income people for being lazy or not trying hard enough to provide these basic needs.
My other point, in short, was that ALL healthcare costs are divided among participants in health insurance. Whether its birth control or the birth of a child who will need medical care his/her whole life. Some people take more risks than others, some people decide not to abort a severely disabled fetus, etc. These are all personal decisions we make that affect the cost of health insurance, not just birth control.
Best of luck with your little one.
From what I can tell, it sounds like you're a control freak like me! :)
DeleteYou are worried we can't accomplish your goals for this country if we depend on "the whims of wealthier people," so it seems you'd like to use the law to *make* the wealthy do what's right. I'd love if it were that easy! Then Greece wouldn't be bankrupt and I would be so worried about America's financial future.
Unfortunately, history shows wealth redistribution and government charities ("Welfare States") destroy economies. If you think the rich are unmotivated to be selfless now, imagine what happens when everybody gets equal benefits, no matter what. Anyway, volunteered-charity may be "unstable," but I don't believe forced-charity is the answer.
I'd like to introduce you to Star Parker. She's better equipped to talk on the subject, because she was trapped in the welfare system for many years and now runs a non-profit organization empowering inner city families to escape like she did. In her words, big government amounts to "slavery" for *all* of us. The only solutions lie in keeping America free.
Deletehttp://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?id=3294&tag=Welfare
I agree that some welfare states have failed, but then again, can you name a fully liberalized society that is doing well? While Star Parker has a compelling life story (from what I read on her website), I don't see how her ideas are really linked to any research.
ReplyDeleteI CERTAINLY agree that our welfare system is not ideal. I think we need to offer much better services to people (education, counseling, etc) so they actually have a chance of escaping poverty. I think if we all have a stake in each other's success, we will all do better. A more socialized state does not necessarily imply that competition or individual rights are out the window. I think it's more complex than you are assuming.
I would refer you to the Scandinavian countries, which have excellent social welfare indicators and function largely on a socialized system. I don't think this means there is less freedom. In fact, I think it gives everyone more freedom to truly participate in society. This wikipedia entry is a great overview of the Nordic model I am referring to (I could refer you to some books, but I think that might be excessive!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Here is a more technical article that is richer in content:
http://www.globalutmaning.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Davos-The-nordic-way-final.pdf
Let me ask a very direct question. Why would anyone want to "escape poverty," if being poor gets you free healthcare, education, food, and housing?
ReplyDeleteLet's put it this way: If access to the services you list causes a lack of motivation to escape poverty (presumably by working), then why does Norway have an unemployment rate of around 3% and a stable economy? Clearly the Norwegians are making enough money to pay the taxes to provide those services, because they have a budget surplus.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Norwegians work when they don't "have" to (even though they do, because taxes pay for the services), it's because they have a stronger sense of commitment to community. They see their success wrapped up in everyone else's. Also, I think if we are brought up with a community mindset, and are also taught that we all have gifts and contributions to the world, then it is natural to want to contribute in a positive way. This is where empathy becomes key. Not everyone has lived the life you have. Not everyone was told by their parents or society that they were valuable. Not everyone had a quality education. People experience trauma and mental illness that further complicate their lives. These are just a few factors.
Here is an interesting study that shows on pg 3 that people who are low-income have higher rates of mental illness, especially if they have experienced a trauma (rape, crime, childhood abuse). (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/addressmental.pdf) Interestingly, 6/10 women on TANF (welfare) were either physically or sexually abused as children. I think a lot of people on government programs are dealing with untreated mental illness, which is exacerbated (or maybe even triggered) by the stress of their lives. This is where empathy becomes key. Unless you have struggled with mental illness, it might be difficult to imagine how overwhelming it can be to function like a normal person.
The education disparity in this country is another issue. 50% of people who were on TANF for over a year did not have a high school diploma. It's hard to get a job that pulls you out of poverty if you don't have an education, and it's hard to motivate yourself to go back to school if your educational experience was abysmal. If I had to go to a terrible school, I might question the value of education as well.
One thing to note is that TANF post-1996 is a very limited program. There is a 5 year limit, there is a child exclusion clause (you can't get more money for more babies), and there are stringent work requirements. It's also VERY little money. For example, in Texas, a mom with 2 kids would receive $225/month. She would qualify for medicaid and food stamps as well, but $225/month is not going to come close to covering decent housing, and there is a profound shortage of affordable housing throughout the US.
In short, I see real barriers that exist for people who receive government support. At the very least, we need to improve our education system and provide better mental health services. It is more complicated than what I am portraying here, but I am hoping you get the idea as I highlight some of the biggest issues.
As usual, there are many places we agree... You pointed out there are *lots* of barriers standing in the way of people in poverty, and you are correct. We also agree that education and empathy for others are parts of the solution. But, I also believe you stepped on your own foot.
ReplyDeleteFirst, an answer to your question. Norway is lucky to be sitting on a liquid gold-mine. The government owns the resources and is nice enough to give a government job to anyone who wants to play in the oil. In this way, Norway is like a very (very very) rich uncle, who lets his nephews work for him because they’re family—even if some of his nephews are kind of irresponsible. Call it National Nepotism.
Anyway, if/when we find an alternate energy source, this uncle will lose HIS money, and then how will he provide for all his dependents? Actually, tragedy could happen sooner if those people somehow lost the sense of community you mentioned. Think of Saudi Arabia, where money isn’t a problem, but the people cannot control their own leaders. Turns out, their uncle isn’t as “nice” as Norway’s, and now, the whole family is at war.
So, can we agree that every government’s weakness is imperfect (sometimes totally evil) people? We simply can’t guarantee they will do the right thing every time, right? But I wonder: why do you trust people will work “even when they don’t have to” because they “want to contribute in a positive way,” but you believe American volunteerism is “too unstable” and “subject to the whims” of people like you and me?
If Norwegians can remain good, upstanding, community-minded people, then their model could work in theory. But, if we were good, upstanding, community-minded people, our American model would work, too. In fact, ANY government could work, except that we immoral humans mess it up.
That's why we have to consider the worst-case scenario, and that's where America's system wins. Norway's powerful, know-it-all government would be FAR easier to abuse. Our founding fathers empowered Americans to handle our own destiny, as long as we weren’t naïve enough to sell that freedom for “safety.” It doesn’t take long for dictators to enslave people who believe life comes with guarantees.
P.S. I hope all the uses of quotation marks don't make it sound like I'm mocking you. I just wanted to make sure I use the words you do! :)
DeleteAlso, it encourages me that you have such high expectations for the morality of people. It's optimism like yours that does great things for the country--if we can just have more conversations like this one to get people on board! Let's educate. Let's feed/shelter the poor. We don't have to take make laws forcing people to do it (and taking their freedoms at the same time). Let's do it without them! :)
Your use of quotations is not offensive, but I appreciate you contextualizing the tone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Norway relies a lot on oil. However, other Scandinavian economies (Sweden, etc) have remained stable and are more diversified. If you look at countries using the Nordic model, you notice that their economies have been much more stable than most other economies over decades. It is difficult to explain away by good luck, especially given how excellent their social indicators are even during more challenging economic times.
I also think your uncle analogy is very off. First, Scandinavian countries are democracies with very high participation rates (voting, etc) and very low corruption rates (lower than the US and UK) because the government is highly transparent. They are much less susceptible to "evil" leaders as a result, and the people control the resources because they control the government in a very authentic way. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is NOT a democracy, it's an absolute monarchy. That's like comparing apples and oranges. This is why calling Scandinavian governments "know it all" makes no sense to me. If the people control the government (low corruption, high participation, etc) then aren't the people the ones who "know it all"?
Now let me address your question about why the Nordic model succeeds, while the American charity model fails. It's basically culture. Americans are taught not to care about community, and people in Scandinavian countries are brought up in a culture in which there is a sense of mutual success. Clearly, it's more complicated than that, but that's the concise way to put it. People in Culture 1 act X way, people in Culture 2 act Y way. Unless you believe that God magically made Scandinavians better people, then culture is really the only factor to explain the difference. I personally believe that the Nordic model allows us to connect to the better part of ourselves. There are sociopaths in every culture, but I think most people in the right environment are good at heart. Not perfect, but good...
Now, is the Nordic model perfect? Of course not. I agree with you that humans are flawed. For example, Scandinavian countries are struggling with racism as globalization changes our international system. But, if you look at the economic, social, and health trends, it's pretty difficult to argue that the American charity/individualism model is superior to the Nordic model.
Your "worst case scenario" is kind of vague so it's hard for me to address. I am assuming you mean that some kind of dictator takes over the country? I think that's actually LESS likely in a Nordic model because the people are already more involved in their government and therefore more empowered. I feel like if the worst case scenario occurs, it's going to be pretty terrible either way. To be honest, the discussion of the worst case scenario reminds of a scare tactic. The world is constantly changing and I think we do the best we can as we go. If the Nordic model has all these incredible indicators, has worked for decades, and seems to actually deter the "worst case scenario" in some ways, then why should we stick with a system that does not seem to work? I think it's easy for you and I to talk intellectually about these things while there are a lot of people suffering in our nation.
Here's another thought that I think helps to explain the difference: Scandinavian countries have a much less divided society (economically) than the US. In other words, income inequality is significantly worse in the US than in Scandinavian countries. Therefore, what the wealthy decide to do with their money is far less... relevant, I guess is a good word, because they have less of it to begin with. I realize this has been politicized a lot by the Occupy Wall Street movement, but it's objectively documented. Thus, my point is just that the Nordic culture is going to be difference because this vast inequality does not exist there.
ReplyDeleteI think this will be my last response on this particular post--simply because of how off-topic we've gotten. But I want to thank you again for keeping the conversation friendly, and I hope you'll continue reading my stuff...
DeleteI only want to leave you with one thought: citizens do not have "control of their government" just because they ELECT the people who tell them what to do. Regardless of how closely politicians represent your beliefs, it's still not the same as being in control yourself. Plus, when two people disagree, as you and I do, one of us MUST lose our freedom of choice. Any Big Government that represents *your* ideal economic model will ignore mine. Likewise, a conservative Norwegian is not represented by his government: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234
As I said to fellow Christians awhile back, "Laws don't change hearts." (http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2010/08/mosques-and-same-sex-marriage.html) Our job, if we really believe in a certain cause, is to convince each of our neighbors--one by one--to jump on board with us. Any other strategy only causes disagreement, power-struggles, and the eventual loss of freedom for at least one group.
Power struggles occur in all situations (think of the terrible abuse that occurs even in marriages!). Laws don't change hearts, but they protect people from those who amass power, often by illegitimate means.
ReplyDeleteIf we all had the time and means to be our own representatives, that would be great, but we do not. A more involved democracy (one that goes beyond just voting) allows for a much more transparent and community oriented government - which is very similar to your point about government not reflecting our desires as much as we as individuals can. I think a more engaged democracy is somewhat of a middle ground.
I also really question why you think this capitalistic, small government society would work since we have never seen it successfully demonstrated, while we have seen the Nordic model succeed.
I agree that, at some point, we have to end the conversation. We could go on forever!