[by "popular" demand]
I used to think I was a socialist. I didn't know much about socialist economic, social or political theory. I hadn't read Marx. I couldn't articulate the differences between socialism and communism. I had never heard of the Second International or Frederick Engels. So... why?
To be completely honest, a lot had to do with my aesthetics. For me--and this is still true--there was literally nothing in the world more offensive to the senses than a large crowd. Times Square, Pier 39, sporting events, zoos, concerts, Yellowstone, and the Rose Festival all left me with acute sensory rage. The merciless ugliness of these places arose from individuality taken too far, I thought. Each person was so focused on making themselves stand out in a crowd that the effect of the crowd was complete and intense visual confusion. Add to that intense blasts of noxious deodorants, bodily insecticides, hair spray, perfume, and other industrial synthesized personal care products, and I experienced my own personal hell.
So I decided that I was not a huge fan of freewheeling individuality and that a certain amount of uniformity across society is a good thing. While jealously defending my need to be different from everybody else, I wanted the rest of humanity to stop being so frazzin' different from each other. Somehow I thought that socialism would deliver this. The key here is that a large portion of my motivation was aesthetic. Not moral, not philosophical, not logical, but aesthetic.
I thought of other ways to defend what I considered socialism, which I thought of as simply the mandated practice of equality and unity. Scripture, the fantastic gulf between the well-offs and the have-nots, an ideallistic streak and a taste for being different [ironically enough] all seemed to solidify my position on socialism.
Then, I learned what socialism is all about. Nothing doing!
At this point in my life I see the aesthetic purgatory that is Disneyland as an unavoidable consequence of the inalienable rights of human expression. I still feel strongly that every tax-paying citizen has the right to health care, that unfettered consumerism is immoral and destructive, that capitalism is in essence sinful, and that masses of people are profoundly nauseating.
But I am not a socialist!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So, what about the non-tax-paying?
I've always been conflicted about health care. In France, it was terrible. I really have no idea beyond U.S. and French health care, and the U.S. system is better. But that's like saying that Kansas City fielded a better baseball team than Tampa Bay this year. I'm not really impressed with either. I would say its more "health management" or "health claims management" in both countries. I don't think "care" has much to do with the French system. And I don't mean that in the "they were not too nice as they treated me," but in the "they shuffled people around like chattel to get the job done." Not impressed.
I think that where a country can afford it, EVERYONE ought to have health care. I think it's wrong for gov't to withhold services for any reason. I think even Hitler deserved health care. The judgments should be left to the courts, the health care to the professionals. I have serious misgivings about too much government intrusion, however, and equally so about requiring health-care providers to treat anyone and everyone.
So I have few answers.
By the way, I agree with you about aesthetics--I can't escape my senses and have never understood how others manage. And yet I have had delightful times at both Yellowstone and Disneyland. Worthy of a different discussion, but I'm mellowing.
Anyhow, gotta fly. I thought your reason for thinking you were a socialist very interesting and insightful. I came about it from a different angle and although I never thought I was a socialist, I was very impressed by Marxism having read his philosophies BEFORE I appreciated what socialism, communism and whatever else really were. Like Hugh Nibley, the criticisms were right on, but there weren't any great solutions.
re karl farx:
I didn't really mean that health care should be restricted to tax-paying citizens. I consider health care to be a fundamental right and at the very least all citizens should have government-provided health care. That being said, I think with our capitalized health-care system, this is nearly impossible. At this moment, health care is the most profitable business in America, and that's deeply troubling to me [especially considering the shabbiness of the care!].
I'm interested to hear that France is even worse. As far as birth statistics go, Cuba is better than the US, not to mention the socialized European systems. I don't know about other statistics though...
Ditto on your last statement. I find Marx's criticisms of capitalism to be absolutely right-on, but his solutions are just as far off.
Thanks for the comments!
I'm not sure I see health care as a fundamental right, but maybe I'm overreading what you meant by that. I think that insofar as the government can look out for such things, it has to. Or, otherwise put, it should come BEFORE certain other less essential expenses. (Maybe health care should come before we shoot up other countries or before we build the next gargantuan freeway--we can always shoot up someone AFTER we're healthier.)
I have few solid answers, but I think you're right. I wish I knew what to do about it.
BTW, France's health care makes America's look utopian.
yeah, "fundamental right" as in the rights that citizens require of the state they belong to. Not as in a fundamental and universal human right.
Basically, since I see the purpose of governments being to provide things for their citizens that the citizens can't provide for themselves [infrastructure, military, organization, etc.], I see health care as being one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government. Even with our constitution I think the attitude in the government is one of management and not service to the people. In my opinion it shouldn't be within the government's power to withhold health care from any citizen.
that being said, I, like you, don't really have any great suggestions. Sometimes I wish we could tear the whole thing down and build it up from the ground again.
Should a country unable to provide health care accede to the sovereignty of a neighbor who can?
I'm so not political. But I chafe under the way that the health system works now with insurance and stuff. I can't imagine it being a government thing for anyone. Who would make the decisions about what care any given person should receive and when? I don't know much, but my impression has been that government run health care is on the low end of things.
Then again, the rich can always afford to supplement and get the kind of care they want anyway. As nice as it would be to have the government footing the tab for my most recent hospitalization.... We have a friend who's a med student and when he did his pediatric rounds he said that 95% of the kids he saw in a day had viral colds that they could do nothing about. The other 4% were kids with ear infections that were given antibiotics (and I think most of those kinds of things heal on their own anyway). He only saw maybe a handful of kids in a week who really needed medical treatment and diagnosis. Do you know what a colossal waste that is?
Can you imagine what it would be like if the government had a responsibility to cover every child with a cough in the country?
Anyway, I just don't know enough and I'm not sure about anything. But already the government mandates such things as immunizations against sexually transmitted diseases for babies and teen girls. I'm not really completely won over to the idea of asking them to pay for all health care for everyone because I'm sure there will be strings attached. And making health decisions for millions of people at once most likely means that the individual is going to get shafted one way or the other.
There is a big difference between government-controlled and government-financed health care. I'm completely with you that when the government makes health decisions, they're usually very very bad.
But the issue is taking care of situations like this:
1. A certain fraction of the population will get cancer. Even with insurance these days, they usually end up bankrupt because of the extreme cost of the treatments. The bill often ends up costing what a large house would, and there are very few people in the country who can afford that.
2. The government currently subsidizes junk food [through corn subsidies] and doesn't subsidize veggies. This is a health care issue in itself.
3. Last I heard, there were 45 million Americans without health insurance. This means that any accident, no manner how major or minor, any illness or plague, would require treatment that they would have to pay for. Many of them end up not getting treatment, which kills or permanently disables some, and others end up financing the treatment themselves and end up deeply in debt.
4. If you look at statistics, the US has higher rates of fatalities from most major diseases and medical problems than almost any other country in the developed world. I agree with you that a large part of this is the incompetence of our medical system, but an equally important factor is the fact that many people don't get treatment because they can't afford it.
The crux of the matter is that many have died in the US from treatable and preventable diseases because of lack of money. And many more suffer through flu season without medication for the same reason. The government is extremely careful that we all get nice smooth asphalt roads, so why should it let us die without assistance?
Within the last decade or so, hospitals have been bought up by private companies. That means that hospitals are corporations now. They run on the same corporate principles any large company might: trim costs at all costs, focus on maximizing the profit margin, make your investors happy. Every one of these criteria are extremely bad for individual patients. Doctors get bonuses for "selling" you expensive medications without mentioning the much cheaper alternatives, treatment is refused for any custumer, er, patient, who needs expensive procedures but can't pay for them, people are routinely discharged before recovering due to the high cost of maintaining a bed, and on and on and on. So the whole system needs to be un-capitalized and the government should make sure that anybody can get necessary treatment. I'm not saying that government should RUN the thing, just that it's the government's responsibility to make sure that nobody suffers because they can't pay for necessary treatment.
Post a Comment