Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: Chapter 8
This chapter gives an account of Anne Fadiman's initial fears of meeting Lia's parents and the understanding and respect she gains for them after their numerous meetings. I believe that at at least one point in everyone's life, they are afraid of that which is different or unknown. We tend to go into certain situation with the plan to react differently towards others based on either their beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It is human nature to be curious or afraid of that which is different. Anne Fadiman did the smart thing by asking those who were familiar with Hmong culture about how she should act around Lia's parents in order to avoid showing disrespect. However, the advice given to her was mostly wrong. Cultural barriers are strong and could lead to disaster, but they can also be broken with simple gestures of kindness. Like Anne stated, Foua and Nao Kim were very nice people who had been disrespected and treated like second hand citizens since they arrived in America. They only expected her reciprocate the kindness they showed her. Foua and Nao did not expect her to know every aspect of their culture, like most people from foreign countries do.Sometimes, we as Americans respond ignorantly towards people from foreign countries when basic kind gestures are all that are needed. I know many of us have noticed others or have been guilty ourselves of speaking slowly and loudly to a person that we assume does not understand English well. I'm sure this may make the person feel uncomfortable or stupid. Anne Fadiman states that Foua felt that she was stupid because she did not understand English and the skills that she learned in Laos were of no use in America. Fadiman made an interesting point in also stating that her skill of being an attentive and comforting mother to her child legally declared her a child abuser in the United States. It is sad that good parents such as the Lees were determined to be bad parents as a result of two cultures clashing.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Lack of Health Care
The United States is a powerful country. Our technology, economy, and education is advanced, which has driven America to become a headstrong nation. However, our health care systems are faltering right before our eyes. As seen in Michael Moore's "Sicko", the issue of health care and insurance is destroying the lives of many Americans. While we were watching the documentary, I felt really bad inside. It was hard to hear about these devastating stories, where people had died because they lacked the money to pay for their cure. These people had the potential to live, but were stripped of this opportunity because of money. Why is this happening in such a booming country?
When I look around the world and their problems, poverty and poor health care are key issues that are prevalent. Our society highlights these global problems so much that we tend to forget about the same problems lurking in our own countries. There has to be initiatives by the American people and health care providers to tackle and fix these problems. In addition, insurance countries must find options to secure their members and protect their health. Also, the government plays a strong role in these issues. Thus, we must educate ourselves on the platforms of the different candidates. The next President is going to have a strong influence on this topic and its solutions.
Therefore, as Americans we need to be aware of the lack of health care in our own country and address the problem. As the strong country we are, we should not be leaving sick Americans dumped on the street like trash or depriving people of money, so their family members suffer until dead. We must act.
When I look around the world and their problems, poverty and poor health care are key issues that are prevalent. Our society highlights these global problems so much that we tend to forget about the same problems lurking in our own countries. There has to be initiatives by the American people and health care providers to tackle and fix these problems. In addition, insurance countries must find options to secure their members and protect their health. Also, the government plays a strong role in these issues. Thus, we must educate ourselves on the platforms of the different candidates. The next President is going to have a strong influence on this topic and its solutions.
Therefore, as Americans we need to be aware of the lack of health care in our own country and address the problem. As the strong country we are, we should not be leaving sick Americans dumped on the street like trash or depriving people of money, so their family members suffer until dead. We must act.
Thoughts on "Story of Stuff"
I was very pleased with the “Story of Stuff” video; it was well-made, easy to follow, and enlightening. I felt informed but not brainwashed by its facts and message. This is particularly important since many documentaries, as well as organizations preaching environmental, human, and animal rights awareness push for their causes in ways that make them nothing less than propaganda. (In the animal rights arena, PETA is the number one culprit.) “Story of Stuff,” however, was educational without being pushy, informative without skewing the facts. I only caught one mistake in the entire twenty minutes: the part about computers needing only one chip to update them is not exactly true. Even so, this in no way negates the video’s overall message.
Since I am personally interested in sustainability and have taken course in Sustainable Development, I am not entirely shocked by America’s level of consumerism, by our growing rate of environmental depletion, or by Bush’s brilliant post-911 plan of “shop more.” And while a semester’s worth of class cannot be condensed into one video, I can say that “Story of Stuff” adequately summarized the focal points of Sustainable Development into twenty minutes of speech and squiggles. I would like to add one term to the video’s repertoire: “cradle-to-cradle” production. Essentially, the video demonstrated this concept by showing earth, factories/production, and houses/consumption intertwined in a “recycle”-type circle. “Cradle-to-cradle” production simply means that in creating a product, whether plastic, food, or chemicals, we concern ourselves with creating it sustainably (with minimal pollution and depletion), distributing it effectively (through Fair Trade and fair wages), consuming it efficiently (using it until it needs to be replaced), and disposing of it in a way that would allow it to be at least partially reused. By utilizing “cradle-to-cradle” production, we can effectively alleviate and even reverse the suffering of the earth, ecosystems, and communities already caused by America’s self-serving consumerism.
Since I am personally interested in sustainability and have taken course in Sustainable Development, I am not entirely shocked by America’s level of consumerism, by our growing rate of environmental depletion, or by Bush’s brilliant post-911 plan of “shop more.” And while a semester’s worth of class cannot be condensed into one video, I can say that “Story of Stuff” adequately summarized the focal points of Sustainable Development into twenty minutes of speech and squiggles. I would like to add one term to the video’s repertoire: “cradle-to-cradle” production. Essentially, the video demonstrated this concept by showing earth, factories/production, and houses/consumption intertwined in a “recycle”-type circle. “Cradle-to-cradle” production simply means that in creating a product, whether plastic, food, or chemicals, we concern ourselves with creating it sustainably (with minimal pollution and depletion), distributing it effectively (through Fair Trade and fair wages), consuming it efficiently (using it until it needs to be replaced), and disposing of it in a way that would allow it to be at least partially reused. By utilizing “cradle-to-cradle” production, we can effectively alleviate and even reverse the suffering of the earth, ecosystems, and communities already caused by America’s self-serving consumerism.
Universal Healthcare
After reading Anya's blog about the relationship between universal health care and capitalism, I wanted to look for reasons why it was taking so long to even properly discuss the implementation of universal health care. Everyone wants this to happen and it seems like the perfect situation to our health care crisis. While I looked over the web, the reasons for opposition were numerous, but so were those that were for universal health care. I looked at a couple of articles online to read about people's stances and questions on the issue.
1. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21665#continueA
-Distrust of the government: the author, Walter Williams, talks about how government service is sub par to profit-driven companies. Think about (most) public schools and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Williams also brought up the point about longer wait lines for surgery (up to a year). What ties into this is low-quality service with higher pay in the form of increased taxation. He also gives an example of how France has failed in the universal health care department: "France's failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves."
2. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/universal_healt.html
-The abuse argument: "if we morally weak humans are offered something "free" (meaning that someone else is paying for it) we will abuse it.
-Rebuttal: There will always be abuse, but offering basic health care is a moral responsibility. There should also be an emphasis on preventative rather than curative care in order to curb high costs (like for antibiotics).
3.http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
-This site provides great points and counterpoints for the arguments against universal health care. It mentions the "myths" about high costs, service deprivation, and loss of freedom of choice.
An issue that everyone seems to agree on is that American health care needs reform badly. Also, I think that an interesting point that we didn't really touch upon in class was the issue of preventative health care. Why not stop the problem before it can even start? Like an article from above mentions, it would be better to cut out the cost of antibiotics, pain medicine, etc. Of course, preventative medicine is not profitable at all to pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. Instead of thinking that the body can and will go wrong, wouldn't it be better to think of the body as something that is naturally healthy?
1. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21665#continueA
-Distrust of the government: the author, Walter Williams, talks about how government service is sub par to profit-driven companies. Think about (most) public schools and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Williams also brought up the point about longer wait lines for surgery (up to a year). What ties into this is low-quality service with higher pay in the form of increased taxation. He also gives an example of how France has failed in the universal health care department: "France's failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves."
2. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/universal_healt.html
-The abuse argument: "if we morally weak humans are offered something "free" (meaning that someone else is paying for it) we will abuse it.
-Rebuttal: There will always be abuse, but offering basic health care is a moral responsibility. There should also be an emphasis on preventative rather than curative care in order to curb high costs (like for antibiotics).
3.http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
-This site provides great points and counterpoints for the arguments against universal health care. It mentions the "myths" about high costs, service deprivation, and loss of freedom of choice.
An issue that everyone seems to agree on is that American health care needs reform badly. Also, I think that an interesting point that we didn't really touch upon in class was the issue of preventative health care. Why not stop the problem before it can even start? Like an article from above mentions, it would be better to cut out the cost of antibiotics, pain medicine, etc. Of course, preventative medicine is not profitable at all to pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. Instead of thinking that the body can and will go wrong, wouldn't it be better to think of the body as something that is naturally healthy?
Capitalism and Socialized Healthcare
In class on Tuesday we questioned the relationship between capitalism and universal health care. While it seemed at first that capitalism was contradictory to socialized healthcare, we soon realized that many countries, such as the England and France, have both capitalist market systems and universal healthcare. Indeed, socialized health care in no way opposes or threatens our capitalist way of life. After watching the remainder of Sicko— I couldn’t help renting it— I realized that we have several socialized/”universal” systems within our country that we do not recognize as such because they have been so ingrained into our daily lives. These include the postal service, primary education, the police, and most importantly, the fire department.
We take these services for granted; they are universal and in theory do not discriminate against economic status. (In practice, of course, we know that poorer neighborhoods are likely farther away from fire stations or have fewer police officers.) In America, we assume that if our house catches fire, a government-organized, taxed-funded fire department will send a team of trained men (or women) to save our lives and hopefully, our home. The firefighters will come based on need, will arrive as quickly as possible, and will provide the necessary equipment, expertise, and manpower to save us. They will not look for proof of financial security before putting out the blaze and they will not ask for money afterward.
Similarly, Canadian, British, and French citizens can safely assume that if they become ill, the health care system paid for by their taxes— just as our fire department is paid for by our taxes—will provide necessary medical treatment, whether for a heart attack or a scratch. In Sicko, Tony Benn, a British politician and long-time advocate of socialized health care explained (in paraphrase): “If your house were burning down, the firefighters wouldn’t come and look for a plaque on your wall that said you had fire insurance before putting out the fire! That would be ridiculous, what if the house next to you caught fire from their delay?” I cannot agree more completely. How can we apply universal care to the postal service but not to something as vital and life-preserving as healthcare? Is not a stroke, aneurism, or major trauma similar to a fire, where every second lost brings one closer to death? Another analogy can be drawn with contagious diseases? If we turn away patients with potent viruses or bacterial infections—think tuberculosis—will their neighbors not also “catch fire?” I disappointed that none of our presidential candidates advocate openly and forcefully for universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is something that I believe so strongly in that such a candidate would certainly get my vote.
We take these services for granted; they are universal and in theory do not discriminate against economic status. (In practice, of course, we know that poorer neighborhoods are likely farther away from fire stations or have fewer police officers.) In America, we assume that if our house catches fire, a government-organized, taxed-funded fire department will send a team of trained men (or women) to save our lives and hopefully, our home. The firefighters will come based on need, will arrive as quickly as possible, and will provide the necessary equipment, expertise, and manpower to save us. They will not look for proof of financial security before putting out the blaze and they will not ask for money afterward.
Similarly, Canadian, British, and French citizens can safely assume that if they become ill, the health care system paid for by their taxes— just as our fire department is paid for by our taxes—will provide necessary medical treatment, whether for a heart attack or a scratch. In Sicko, Tony Benn, a British politician and long-time advocate of socialized health care explained (in paraphrase): “If your house were burning down, the firefighters wouldn’t come and look for a plaque on your wall that said you had fire insurance before putting out the fire! That would be ridiculous, what if the house next to you caught fire from their delay?” I cannot agree more completely. How can we apply universal care to the postal service but not to something as vital and life-preserving as healthcare? Is not a stroke, aneurism, or major trauma similar to a fire, where every second lost brings one closer to death? Another analogy can be drawn with contagious diseases? If we turn away patients with potent viruses or bacterial infections—think tuberculosis—will their neighbors not also “catch fire?” I disappointed that none of our presidential candidates advocate openly and forcefully for universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is something that I believe so strongly in that such a candidate would certainly get my vote.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Issue of Health Care in the Upcoming Presidential Election
After reading the article for class along with watching the documentary, Sicko, I think many of us realized how fortunate we are to have covered health care. We all enjoy the privilege of being able to get the medicine that we need, go to an emergency room without being turned down, and not have to have money on reserve in case an accident were to happen. We all expressed concern for those who had to deal with these issues and how the presidential candidates were planning on addressing these issues. I found the following information on the New York Times Website:
Hillary Clinton wants to require all citizens of the United States to have health care. She wants employers to provide health insurance or at least cover some of the cost for their employees. In order to help people with troubling financial situations, she wants to provide government support by allowing them to choose from the private plans that are offered to members of Congress She considers her health plan the American Health Choices plan because she allows citizens to pick between public and private insurance.
Barack Obama also wants to require employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. He also wants the government to subsidize those who cannot afford health insurance. In order to promote people to obtain health care (and reward them), he will cut the costs by $2500 dollars per family. He wants to require that all children are covered and aims for universal health care.
John McCain does not want to require everyone to get health insurance, however he will provide tax credits to those who do have it in order to make it more affordable. He wants to make health care affordable to every citizen. McCain also wants to improve the quality that health care by compensating medical providers.
Overall, all of these candidates want to make health care more affordable to citizens in order to increase the percentage of people who are covered. However, only McCain addresses the issue of the quality of health care being provided. Hopefully for those of you who are voting, found this information useful and it will help guide your decision making process.
Domino Effect
During our discussion in class today something, actually many things dawned on me. Professor Bailey mentioned that if it is difficult for us to imagine not being able to talk a stand and so through the tough times to get what we want, it is the result of certain elements in society that are used to keep those who are unsatisfied from being able to affect meaningful change. I guess no matter how intelligent or independent we think we are, there is still this fear of The Man.
The issue of healthcare is a very important one. Watching the clip from Sicko in which patients were dumped on Skid Row made me think that one day, if the current trend in healthcare in America continues, despite all me desire to help people, I may be working in a hospital or place where the people who I want to help and who inspired me to go into medicine will be rejected and not given the care they need. In the list of various countries’ rankings in quality of healthcare, as many people pointed out, many of the 36 countries above the U.S. are capitalist societies and yet they have much better healthcare for their citizens. So if it is not the economy, then what is keeping us from implementing a plan that would provide healthcare to all people in the United States? Is it greed, fear, the idea of the self made individual who should not rely on others, apathy, complacency, discouragement, all, or some of the above? We are relying on time to solve this issue but time will do nothing but pass as we think and talk about what needs to be done. A person should not have to decide whether to put food on the table or pay for insurance or healthcare. No person should have to perform any type of surgery, no matter how minor, on themselves. We have become so used to quick fixes and looking at things in the short run that is has affected the way we approach making changes. Sure in the short run what ever plan our country decides to take will be costly, annoying, etc. But in the long run the benefits will be much greater. More people will be able to share load of running/maintaining the society without the fear that any mishap could put them out of commission, and the costs will go down for everyone. These things all seem like common sense to us, but as many of you pointed out bureaucracy makes something that should be oh so simple, unnecessarily difficult.
Disability and the issues affecting healthcare access in America are somewhat similar. In many instances a person with a disability or no healthcare is immediately judged by the qualities they lack. The issues facing both matters have come to be seen as burdens which should be dealt with in a private, family by family manner. Yet both are in fact very public issues in which the consequence of actions taken affects everyone.
The issue of healthcare is a very important one. Watching the clip from Sicko in which patients were dumped on Skid Row made me think that one day, if the current trend in healthcare in America continues, despite all me desire to help people, I may be working in a hospital or place where the people who I want to help and who inspired me to go into medicine will be rejected and not given the care they need. In the list of various countries’ rankings in quality of healthcare, as many people pointed out, many of the 36 countries above the U.S. are capitalist societies and yet they have much better healthcare for their citizens. So if it is not the economy, then what is keeping us from implementing a plan that would provide healthcare to all people in the United States? Is it greed, fear, the idea of the self made individual who should not rely on others, apathy, complacency, discouragement, all, or some of the above? We are relying on time to solve this issue but time will do nothing but pass as we think and talk about what needs to be done. A person should not have to decide whether to put food on the table or pay for insurance or healthcare. No person should have to perform any type of surgery, no matter how minor, on themselves. We have become so used to quick fixes and looking at things in the short run that is has affected the way we approach making changes. Sure in the short run what ever plan our country decides to take will be costly, annoying, etc. But in the long run the benefits will be much greater. More people will be able to share load of running/maintaining the society without the fear that any mishap could put them out of commission, and the costs will go down for everyone. These things all seem like common sense to us, but as many of you pointed out bureaucracy makes something that should be oh so simple, unnecessarily difficult.
Disability and the issues affecting healthcare access in America are somewhat similar. In many instances a person with a disability or no healthcare is immediately judged by the qualities they lack. The issues facing both matters have come to be seen as burdens which should be dealt with in a private, family by family manner. Yet both are in fact very public issues in which the consequence of actions taken affects everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)