I visit my local deli almost every morning at about 5:45 a.m. to get a mint tea. It's a sort of soothing ritual until I realize that the guy at the cash register at 5:45 a.m. is still there at 5:00-6:00 p.m. when I pick up some milk or some other item. The guy is about my age and is always really nice to everyone and seems almost oddly cheerful (or delerious). I think he works about 16 hours a day.
To me, that ought to be the basis for a Tea Party movement. (I already have the wardrobe and slogan in my head: "I sell or serve tea 16 hours a day and all I get is this lousy t-shirt.") I'll get the numbers a little bit wrong but a very large plurality of Americans pay no federal taxes (except their share of payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare). It's not because they don't work. It's because they don't make enough money to justify the government taking a nickel from them.
I pulled double shifts when I was a kid working in a restaurant. (Not only does it build character as our parents probably told us; for many of us, it solidified our desire to get through undergraduate and graduate school.) I hardly ever logged the minimum hours when I became a manager at a state agency. Usually, it was about 10 hours a week more. Most of my colleagues did the exact same thing. Most of my colleagues ate at their desks. The difference is we were already getting paid a living wage and had health insurance.
Shouldn't the Tea Party movement be about the guy at my local deli? That would mean that people who do pay taxes would advocate for those whose incomes don't justify taxes. They would have to demand universal health care access and an increase in the minimum wage along with a willingness to pay more for groceries brought to your local market by people who earned a living wage. Wealthier people might not like to hear it, but they get government subsidies every day. They can usually write off mortgage interest for two residences. Renters can't. Their grocery bill is subsidized by tolerating poor wages for farm workers (and then decry the fact that we have uncontrolled, undocumented immigration that no concrete wall will fix). The domestic services they pay for are rarely above minimum wage. Those services are often supplied by the same ethnic groups who are undocumented immigrants who are afraid to speak up and risk deportation.
The economic elites in the Tea Party movement conveniently forget how lucky they are and then recruit poor people to show up at their events to protect the rights of the elite and work against their own interests.
Am I missing something here? I'm going to finish my tea, now.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Women and Economics
Since the middle part of the 1960s my mother earned more than either of her husbands. I am well aware of the general rule that women in the U.S. earn about 75 cents on the dollar as men do. That statistic, however, does not tell the whole story. Women of her generation with bachelor's and master's degrees could at least count on earnings sufficient to be economically independent of their husbands provided they worked full time and didn't spend much time on maternity leave. That fact alone probably contributed more to the quality of her relationships than anything else - good and bad. She had the power to abandon any men she believed were harmful to me or her, in that order.
We're still sold on the idea that men make more money than women who do the same work. One of the only places where that is not true is teaching. Leaving aside the benefits, including better-than-average health coverage, teaching is generally a pretty safe career with good pensions and a couple of months off per year.
When these women become widowed, as my mother did in 2008, they may be horribly depressed, despondent and alone for a year or two but their retirement income prevents them from being pulled from their houses. That's a big deal. It is an especially big deal to their children. In my case, my sister and I don't need to worry about my mother's economic situation. We can visit our ancestral home without the fear that she sold all the paintings, rugs, etc., in order to pay the mortgage, the pool guys and the utilities. She can travel modestly when she chooses.
Every time I hear a misogynist rant or a call for "traditional marriage", I always go back to my own life history. I loved my father and my stepfather but I know that the reason we lived a middle class life was because of her profession and willingness to stick with it even when times were tough. For those of you with daughters, take heed. They need to find their way to economic freedom. If you value having choices, it's doubly important.
We're still sold on the idea that men make more money than women who do the same work. One of the only places where that is not true is teaching. Leaving aside the benefits, including better-than-average health coverage, teaching is generally a pretty safe career with good pensions and a couple of months off per year.
When these women become widowed, as my mother did in 2008, they may be horribly depressed, despondent and alone for a year or two but their retirement income prevents them from being pulled from their houses. That's a big deal. It is an especially big deal to their children. In my case, my sister and I don't need to worry about my mother's economic situation. We can visit our ancestral home without the fear that she sold all the paintings, rugs, etc., in order to pay the mortgage, the pool guys and the utilities. She can travel modestly when she chooses.
Every time I hear a misogynist rant or a call for "traditional marriage", I always go back to my own life history. I loved my father and my stepfather but I know that the reason we lived a middle class life was because of her profession and willingness to stick with it even when times were tough. For those of you with daughters, take heed. They need to find their way to economic freedom. If you value having choices, it's doubly important.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
So You Can't Afford Mandatory Health Coverage
Now that a watered down version of health care reform is law, I have a prediction that isn't exactly novel: people who abhor anything that sounds like a government mandate will be out in force trying to pick off Democractic congressmen and Senators in the November elections. Just to be fair, there are a number of state and federal mandates that most of us seem to be pretty comfortable with:
All drivers of vehicles must be licensed by a state; drivers of larger and/or commercial vehicles need a special license in most cases. Most states require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.
Except in a few states, most vehicles on the road require regular inspections based on state standards. If the car doesn't pass, the owner has to fix the problem.
Most states require, at a minimum, that a car owner carry liability insurance in the event of an accident.
With very few exceptions, children are expected to attend school at least through the 8th grade, whether it's through public, private or home schooling.
Blood tests are usually mandatory for couples in order to get a marriage license.
It is mandatory for immigrants to pass a civics test in order to become a citizen of the United States. Many native born Americans would fail it.
It is mandatory for school staff to report suspected child abuse to government authorities.
In many states, a pack of cigarettes is taxed at a rate about 100% higher than they would otherwise be sold - still at a profit to the retailer and supplier.
The common thread? In part it's because we don't want to end up paying for the irresponsibility, unacceptable risk-taking or unluckiness of others. If we are willing, we want to minimize the amount.
I will agree that for some people, the cost of 'mandatory' health insurance will be more than they believe they can afford. They may actually be right. What puzzles me is that some of these people will suffer a catastrophic illness or injury that, if not covered by insurance, I and others will end up paying the bill. This group of people who will refuse to purchase coverage will still expect someone to pay the bill if they can't or will ask for assistance from the government if they can't afford to pay their mortgage bill or rent. They will tell us that it wasn't their fault that they got sick or injured and that it wasn't their fault that they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. Maybe some of them will be right about that. If that's true, I have no problem subsidizing the insurance purchase through additional taxes. In fact, if a person without health insurance can demonstrate to the government - through a tax return or other means - that they truly cannot afford it, I think the government (meaning us) ought to give the individual a tax credit to cover the amount, even if they have paid no state or federal taxes at all based on their income.
The problem I have is that even when I visit my hometown - hardly a wealthy enclave - I rarely see people driving old cars or cars that get reasonably good gas mileage. I don't know many people who don't have cable television, don't eat out at a restaurant on occasion or don't have a cell phone. Some of these people will be the same ones who say that they cannot afford even the most basic health insurance. That makes me just a little bit angry. I'm not interested in subsidizing people who think they are entitled to a number of luxuries that, taken together, are probably about as expensive as basic health coverage.
I spent a brief period of time - during law school - when I went without health insurance. I drove a car that at least got 40 mpg, didn't have a TV, much less cable. Going out to dinner involved getting a slice or two of pizza. I didn't feel poor but had no one else who depended on me for their own economic security. None of that made me a better person than anyone else but I think I had my priorities reasonably related to my economic reality. I would have jumped at the chance to have health insurance at an affordable rate or a subsidy if I still couldn't pay the entire amount.
That's what this legislation is, in part, trying to fix. Put your political party aside for a minute and think about that.
All drivers of vehicles must be licensed by a state; drivers of larger and/or commercial vehicles need a special license in most cases. Most states require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.
Except in a few states, most vehicles on the road require regular inspections based on state standards. If the car doesn't pass, the owner has to fix the problem.
Most states require, at a minimum, that a car owner carry liability insurance in the event of an accident.
With very few exceptions, children are expected to attend school at least through the 8th grade, whether it's through public, private or home schooling.
Blood tests are usually mandatory for couples in order to get a marriage license.
It is mandatory for immigrants to pass a civics test in order to become a citizen of the United States. Many native born Americans would fail it.
It is mandatory for school staff to report suspected child abuse to government authorities.
In many states, a pack of cigarettes is taxed at a rate about 100% higher than they would otherwise be sold - still at a profit to the retailer and supplier.
The common thread? In part it's because we don't want to end up paying for the irresponsibility, unacceptable risk-taking or unluckiness of others. If we are willing, we want to minimize the amount.
I will agree that for some people, the cost of 'mandatory' health insurance will be more than they believe they can afford. They may actually be right. What puzzles me is that some of these people will suffer a catastrophic illness or injury that, if not covered by insurance, I and others will end up paying the bill. This group of people who will refuse to purchase coverage will still expect someone to pay the bill if they can't or will ask for assistance from the government if they can't afford to pay their mortgage bill or rent. They will tell us that it wasn't their fault that they got sick or injured and that it wasn't their fault that they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. Maybe some of them will be right about that. If that's true, I have no problem subsidizing the insurance purchase through additional taxes. In fact, if a person without health insurance can demonstrate to the government - through a tax return or other means - that they truly cannot afford it, I think the government (meaning us) ought to give the individual a tax credit to cover the amount, even if they have paid no state or federal taxes at all based on their income.
The problem I have is that even when I visit my hometown - hardly a wealthy enclave - I rarely see people driving old cars or cars that get reasonably good gas mileage. I don't know many people who don't have cable television, don't eat out at a restaurant on occasion or don't have a cell phone. Some of these people will be the same ones who say that they cannot afford even the most basic health insurance. That makes me just a little bit angry. I'm not interested in subsidizing people who think they are entitled to a number of luxuries that, taken together, are probably about as expensive as basic health coverage.
I spent a brief period of time - during law school - when I went without health insurance. I drove a car that at least got 40 mpg, didn't have a TV, much less cable. Going out to dinner involved getting a slice or two of pizza. I didn't feel poor but had no one else who depended on me for their own economic security. None of that made me a better person than anyone else but I think I had my priorities reasonably related to my economic reality. I would have jumped at the chance to have health insurance at an affordable rate or a subsidy if I still couldn't pay the entire amount.
That's what this legislation is, in part, trying to fix. Put your political party aside for a minute and think about that.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Governor Patterson's Farewell
When Eliot Spitzer imploded under the weight of his own hubris, the newly sworn Governor Patterson seemed like the perfect foil. His intellect, sense of humor, apparent humility and record in the State Senate restored my hope that New York State would start doing bold, smart, forward-thinking things. It didn't take long to realize that the new Governor's honeymoon could be counted in minutes. He was in a tough position given the economic realities he inherited and lacked the perceived power (or perhaps desire) to push his own agenda. Despite Spitzer's abuse of office in trying to get rid of Joe Bruno - I admired the goal but not the method - Patterson learned very little from it.
Domestic violence may not be the third rail of American politics but I wouldn't mind if it were. If you can't feel safe in your own home, what else matters? If a husband or partner gives a woman a morning gift of a black eye, how do we expect that the victim will have the ability to show up at a march to support more money to find a cure for cancer, volunteer at a hospital or make it to work? Ironically, many women do. They need to feed their families. They apply a little foundation make-up or invent a story to deny the reality. Why do they do this? Many are afraid to report it for a variety of reasons, some of them economic. They also know that the criminal justice system and their elected officials do a terrible job of protecting them when they do report it. For some, orders of protection are useless or come too late. For others, they blame themselves for the violence and don't know where to turn for help. Some churches will continue to tell some of these women that their sacred vows cannot be broken even when their noses change shape every year. Some of them are killed by their abusers.
If it is true that Governor Patterson improperly used his office to interfere with a criminal case involving domestic violence by encouraging the victim to keep quiet or change her story, he should not only lose his job. He should lose his law license and maybe spend some time in jail. It's not just about this case. It's about the entitlement of all victims to a government that is committed to protecting them, however imperfectly. It's about children who should never have to watch a parent sit in an emergency room to get her nose or arm reset only to return to the scene of the crime hours later, wondering when it will happen again and if it will be worse the next time. If you don't believe that it affects kids that much, I can tell you from personal experience that it does.
We imprison people who sell dime bags of marijuana. Fine. We imprison poor people who shoplift food. Not so fine. We usually wait until a domestic abuser violates an order of protection to send them to jail and it's because they are in contempt of Court. Not fine.
I would like to believe that this story, if true, will ensure that our state government will take it seriously, improve the criminal justice system and provide real protection for victims. I don't believe it will, though. My lack of optimism is a practical response to what I have known since I was a kid. Women still lack the political and economic power to stop it. Because the vast majority of domestic violence is between straight couples with females being the typical victims, it could take decades to get it right. Too many women will be injured or killed in the meantime. Maybe women who are not victims of domestic violence could make it their business to organize their husbands or partners to stand up and march to Albany. That might get someone's attention.
Domestic violence may not be the third rail of American politics but I wouldn't mind if it were. If you can't feel safe in your own home, what else matters? If a husband or partner gives a woman a morning gift of a black eye, how do we expect that the victim will have the ability to show up at a march to support more money to find a cure for cancer, volunteer at a hospital or make it to work? Ironically, many women do. They need to feed their families. They apply a little foundation make-up or invent a story to deny the reality. Why do they do this? Many are afraid to report it for a variety of reasons, some of them economic. They also know that the criminal justice system and their elected officials do a terrible job of protecting them when they do report it. For some, orders of protection are useless or come too late. For others, they blame themselves for the violence and don't know where to turn for help. Some churches will continue to tell some of these women that their sacred vows cannot be broken even when their noses change shape every year. Some of them are killed by their abusers.
If it is true that Governor Patterson improperly used his office to interfere with a criminal case involving domestic violence by encouraging the victim to keep quiet or change her story, he should not only lose his job. He should lose his law license and maybe spend some time in jail. It's not just about this case. It's about the entitlement of all victims to a government that is committed to protecting them, however imperfectly. It's about children who should never have to watch a parent sit in an emergency room to get her nose or arm reset only to return to the scene of the crime hours later, wondering when it will happen again and if it will be worse the next time. If you don't believe that it affects kids that much, I can tell you from personal experience that it does.
We imprison people who sell dime bags of marijuana. Fine. We imprison poor people who shoplift food. Not so fine. We usually wait until a domestic abuser violates an order of protection to send them to jail and it's because they are in contempt of Court. Not fine.
I would like to believe that this story, if true, will ensure that our state government will take it seriously, improve the criminal justice system and provide real protection for victims. I don't believe it will, though. My lack of optimism is a practical response to what I have known since I was a kid. Women still lack the political and economic power to stop it. Because the vast majority of domestic violence is between straight couples with females being the typical victims, it could take decades to get it right. Too many women will be injured or killed in the meantime. Maybe women who are not victims of domestic violence could make it their business to organize their husbands or partners to stand up and march to Albany. That might get someone's attention.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Getting Fit
Caveat: I am not a nutritionist, personal trainer or medical professional. Having said that, I read a recent article about First Lady Michelle Obama speaking out about obesity, proper nutrition and other related topics, all in an effort to encourage us to be healthier. There was typical commentary about the government getting involved in this issue in any way. Most of those comments said (quite rightly to some extent) that individuals and families ought to be left alone to deal with obesity issues. The problem is they are either not doing it because they don't care or because they lack access to quality, affordable food, the time to prepare it and do not have the time to exercise.
There is nothing wrong with the First Lady's involvement as a spokesperson, role model and cheerleader. Let's not forget that she is working for free. Let's also not forget that the government pays billions to states for Medicaid which means that we are all paying for the treatment of obesity-related diseases on some level. The government has a right and, to me, a duty, to work at espousing the virtues of getting fitter than we are. There are so many stories of people with Type II diabetes who lost a significant amount of weight and are no longer diabetics.
I realize it's not easy to drop weight. It requires some planning and real commitment. Other than a few years in college and just afterwards, my body weight at 45 is the same as it was when I was 18, give or take five pounds. Some people think I'm too thin and I occasionally agree but my Body Mass Index is within the low end of what is considered healthy. I was genetically lucky, as well. Neither of my parents ever gained enough weight to be considered obese and it was never an issue at all until my father was in his 50s and my mother in her late 50s/early 60s. I don't think it's just genetics, though. My father tried to watch what he ate and my mother loves mayonnaise more than she loves some people but tries to stay away from it. Genetics notwithstanding, I think there are a few things most people can do to become fitter and healthier.
Excercise more. Whether aerobic or through weight training (it's a myth that women who lift weights get bigger. They get leaner and may even gain weight because they are replacing fat with muscle.) Muscle is heavier than fat. Park the car far away from whatever supermarket or store you are visiting. It's raining? Get an umbrella. Go ahead and take the advice to eat 5 small meals a day instead of three bigger ones or one huge one. I do exactly what everyone seems to say is the worst thing you can do: eat one large meal a day. It's really about the calories you consume. If you eat fewer calories than you burn off, you'll lose weight. Get enough sleep. Don't open the refrigerator every time you enter your kitchen. Get rid of the sugared soda. Drive past fast-food restaurants. I think gum chewing is an ugly habit but if it keeps you away from bad snack food, by all means chew gum. If you can, even if you are alone, sit down to eat and try to do it slowly, giving your body the time to tell you when you are really full. Don't deprive yourself of everything but understand that a candy bar is a treat, not a daily part of your routine. If you have kids, try to eat at least 5 meals together every week and while doing so, talk to each other about something other than the food on the table. My mother insisted that we eat dinner together on weekdays, regardless of whether a sports practice got the last person in the door at 8:00 p.m. Become an omnivore. I am always shocked to find out that the people with the greatest number of food phobias are heavier than people who have a more accepting palate. If all you like are fried chicken nuggets, pizza and pasta, you are probably doomed to weighing much more than you need to. Look at your thinner friends and try to do what they do. You'll find that many slimmer people eat half their restaurant meal and have the rest wrapped up for the next day's lunch (and probably throw it away when they get home). If vanity is your motivation - fine. If setting an example for your kids is your thing - that's great, too. Unless you are a diabetic, skipping a meal or two won't kill you. I eat between 7 and 10 meals per week. I might have a handful of roasted almonds during the day but not much more than that. Apparently, at my level of exercise, I burn off about 2200 calories a day. I probably eat about 2200 calories a day if you take an average over a week. For most of us, just reducing that number to 2000 or 1800 will, in time, result in slow, sustainable weight loss. It's not rocket science. And, for God's sake, have some bread if you want it. Just don't ask Appleby's to refill the basket. Better yet, ask them to give you the salad before the bread comes.
There is nothing wrong with the First Lady's involvement as a spokesperson, role model and cheerleader. Let's not forget that she is working for free. Let's also not forget that the government pays billions to states for Medicaid which means that we are all paying for the treatment of obesity-related diseases on some level. The government has a right and, to me, a duty, to work at espousing the virtues of getting fitter than we are. There are so many stories of people with Type II diabetes who lost a significant amount of weight and are no longer diabetics.
I realize it's not easy to drop weight. It requires some planning and real commitment. Other than a few years in college and just afterwards, my body weight at 45 is the same as it was when I was 18, give or take five pounds. Some people think I'm too thin and I occasionally agree but my Body Mass Index is within the low end of what is considered healthy. I was genetically lucky, as well. Neither of my parents ever gained enough weight to be considered obese and it was never an issue at all until my father was in his 50s and my mother in her late 50s/early 60s. I don't think it's just genetics, though. My father tried to watch what he ate and my mother loves mayonnaise more than she loves some people but tries to stay away from it. Genetics notwithstanding, I think there are a few things most people can do to become fitter and healthier.
Excercise more. Whether aerobic or through weight training (it's a myth that women who lift weights get bigger. They get leaner and may even gain weight because they are replacing fat with muscle.) Muscle is heavier than fat. Park the car far away from whatever supermarket or store you are visiting. It's raining? Get an umbrella. Go ahead and take the advice to eat 5 small meals a day instead of three bigger ones or one huge one. I do exactly what everyone seems to say is the worst thing you can do: eat one large meal a day. It's really about the calories you consume. If you eat fewer calories than you burn off, you'll lose weight. Get enough sleep. Don't open the refrigerator every time you enter your kitchen. Get rid of the sugared soda. Drive past fast-food restaurants. I think gum chewing is an ugly habit but if it keeps you away from bad snack food, by all means chew gum. If you can, even if you are alone, sit down to eat and try to do it slowly, giving your body the time to tell you when you are really full. Don't deprive yourself of everything but understand that a candy bar is a treat, not a daily part of your routine. If you have kids, try to eat at least 5 meals together every week and while doing so, talk to each other about something other than the food on the table. My mother insisted that we eat dinner together on weekdays, regardless of whether a sports practice got the last person in the door at 8:00 p.m. Become an omnivore. I am always shocked to find out that the people with the greatest number of food phobias are heavier than people who have a more accepting palate. If all you like are fried chicken nuggets, pizza and pasta, you are probably doomed to weighing much more than you need to. Look at your thinner friends and try to do what they do. You'll find that many slimmer people eat half their restaurant meal and have the rest wrapped up for the next day's lunch (and probably throw it away when they get home). If vanity is your motivation - fine. If setting an example for your kids is your thing - that's great, too. Unless you are a diabetic, skipping a meal or two won't kill you. I eat between 7 and 10 meals per week. I might have a handful of roasted almonds during the day but not much more than that. Apparently, at my level of exercise, I burn off about 2200 calories a day. I probably eat about 2200 calories a day if you take an average over a week. For most of us, just reducing that number to 2000 or 1800 will, in time, result in slow, sustainable weight loss. It's not rocket science. And, for God's sake, have some bread if you want it. Just don't ask Appleby's to refill the basket. Better yet, ask them to give you the salad before the bread comes.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Health Care Reform
I wouldn't give up on health care reform just yet, but I no longer think it will be the kind of real reform many hoped to achieve. What saddens me the most is that much of the rhetoric from the right has focused on the inclusion of a publicly-run option that would compete with private insurers. If they truly believed that a publicly-run option would ultimately be inferior, it is cynical to suggest that those seeking health insurance would choose that option in the first place.
I sound like a broken record but, as I have said many times, we already have a "public option" and have been paying for it for many years. When sick people have no insurance and no primary care physician to turn to, they turn to emergency rooms, the costliest way to deliver care for non-emergency, non-life threatening illnesses. Hospitals bill the uninsured emergency room patient who obviously cannot afford to pay; some of these patients who can't afford to pay make a choice between paying their hospital bill or their rent or mortgage. Many will pay the hospital and risk foreclosure. Many will pay the mortgage and fail to pay the hospital. Those of us with health insurance will watch their property values deflate due to foreclosures happening all around them. Many will watch their hospitals drop specialties that are not self-sustaining and instead rely on the overall income of the hospital to stay in business. Businesses do this all the time. Restaurants may lose money on some of the food they serve but make up for it by relying on beverage service to stay solvent. It's not that different for non-profit hospitals.
It's also convenient to overlook the fact that people with no insurance and no primary care physician are denied access to preventive care, typically the cheapest and best way to deliver care for common ailments - Type 2 diabetes, respiratory infections, etc. Untreated diabetes, for example, can certainly land someone in an emergency room because of the damage the disease can do to vital organs and even limbs.
If we end up with watered-down health care "reform", little will change. We will not spread risk, resulting in higher premiums for those with insurance. If that's not a part of paying for health care for the uninsured, I don't know what is.
If you do not believe that access to affordable health care is a moral obligation, I am sorry to tell you that it doesn't matter when it comes to what you pay for your own health care. We have a "system" right now that guarantees an economically inefficient delivery of care. The difference is that we had little control over its establishment - done piecemeal and without much debate. I wish we would all wake up and realize that it is better to elect people with the courage to replace the current "system" with an actual plan that makes getting and maintaining health care insurance possible for most, if not all of us. It turns out that we are sometimes our brothers' keepers, whether we like it or not. It's not a question of whether we do it piecemeal or comprehensively. Doing it comprehensively just sounds much more rational to me.
I sound like a broken record but, as I have said many times, we already have a "public option" and have been paying for it for many years. When sick people have no insurance and no primary care physician to turn to, they turn to emergency rooms, the costliest way to deliver care for non-emergency, non-life threatening illnesses. Hospitals bill the uninsured emergency room patient who obviously cannot afford to pay; some of these patients who can't afford to pay make a choice between paying their hospital bill or their rent or mortgage. Many will pay the hospital and risk foreclosure. Many will pay the mortgage and fail to pay the hospital. Those of us with health insurance will watch their property values deflate due to foreclosures happening all around them. Many will watch their hospitals drop specialties that are not self-sustaining and instead rely on the overall income of the hospital to stay in business. Businesses do this all the time. Restaurants may lose money on some of the food they serve but make up for it by relying on beverage service to stay solvent. It's not that different for non-profit hospitals.
It's also convenient to overlook the fact that people with no insurance and no primary care physician are denied access to preventive care, typically the cheapest and best way to deliver care for common ailments - Type 2 diabetes, respiratory infections, etc. Untreated diabetes, for example, can certainly land someone in an emergency room because of the damage the disease can do to vital organs and even limbs.
If we end up with watered-down health care "reform", little will change. We will not spread risk, resulting in higher premiums for those with insurance. If that's not a part of paying for health care for the uninsured, I don't know what is.
If you do not believe that access to affordable health care is a moral obligation, I am sorry to tell you that it doesn't matter when it comes to what you pay for your own health care. We have a "system" right now that guarantees an economically inefficient delivery of care. The difference is that we had little control over its establishment - done piecemeal and without much debate. I wish we would all wake up and realize that it is better to elect people with the courage to replace the current "system" with an actual plan that makes getting and maintaining health care insurance possible for most, if not all of us. It turns out that we are sometimes our brothers' keepers, whether we like it or not. It's not a question of whether we do it piecemeal or comprehensively. Doing it comprehensively just sounds much more rational to me.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Senator Reid & the Color Wheel
Harry Reid has just acknowledged and apologized for having referred to candidate Barack Obama in private as a "light-skinned" black with no 'Negro dialect'..." His intention, apparently, was to explain, in part, his prediction that Obama would become the nation's first African-American President. How depressing.
Senator Reid, however, is in good company. Don't forget that our current Vice President talked during the primary campaign about how his current boss was "clean...", etc., as if that should surprise anyone. I have to admit that Democrats (yes, I am Democrat but hope I am never lumped together with Senator Reid and still cringe when I think of someone like Joe Biden sounding so stupid when it is clear that he isn't) have frequently done more damage to themselves than any Republican could.
The notion that the President's particular skin color (perhaps Reid will now suggest that Benjamin Moore come out with "Obama Black" as an update to its color wheel) and speaking voice either gave him an advantage or wasn't as frightening to some white voters might very well be true. I don't think we will ever know because polls dealing with attitudes about race and color are notoriously prone to participants lying to pollsters in an effort to appear less racist than they truly are. But "Negro dialect"? Where has Senator Reid been in the last few decades except for Washington, D.C. and Nevada?
I am not a linguistics expert by any means but I'll venture a guess that there are hundreds of English "dialects", many of which are shared across racial lines and that come along with differently-accented English depending on region, etc. In my 45 years on the planet, 30 of them engaged in some kind of productive work, 20 or so of them in New York City, I recall a few white guys from New York City who actually said that they "admired" me for speaking English that they believed was "unaccented". I think what they really meant -- and acknowledged -- was that I had a relatively flat, midwestern speaking voice and that my accent sounded like national broadcast news types. I have rarely listened to my own voice other than my voice mail announcements but I suppose they are right. It was also somewhat cultivated. I was raised in far Upstate New York where many people sound like they live in North Dakota, speaking nasally rather than from their diaphragm, almost as if they are speaking through a tube. I realized pretty early on that it sounded unattractive to me. My parents, for whatever reason, did not sound like many Upstaters, most notably because they didn't drop their gerunds and their flat affect was not so flat that it sounded like I was in the movie Fargo.
Accents are clearly learned and a child's school experience can trump the way English is spoken in their own homes. I recall my sister, who is 15 years younger than I am but raised in the same community, began to sound like a local at about the age of 12 or 13, just like many of her friends did. Since I was sure that her IQ was far higher than mine and that she would have many different career choices to consider, I told her to cut it out, to at least say her gerunds (no more goin', seein', bein'), because people who would interview her for university placement and jobs might find it a distraction. Since her writing was nearly flawless at an early age, it just didn't match, at least to my ear. She took the advice. Is that elitist? Maybe. I thought it was practical. Some years later, a very successful college friend of my partner's dropped her local Bostonian accent for very similar reasons. She could be a news reader and you would never know exactly from where she hailed. The same is true for many of my African American colleagues and friends, many of whom can slip into and out of different accents at the drop of a hat. Reid was probably not entirely wrong in what he said. It was the way he said it that is unnerving.
It is so obvious that despite our status (crumbling a bit but still there) as the Leader of the Free World, we have made insufficient progress when it comes to our national fear of racial, geographical and ethnic differences, of discussing race or acknowledging our lack of understanding of how race infects our politics and interactions with each other in workplaces and our neighborhoods. I dropped whatever fears I had about that in my early 30s. I asked questions of some of my African American colleagues. They seemed quite happy to tell me their views. It helped me tremendously.
No one can say that Reid hasn't been on the progressive side of the coin on issues important to racial and ethnic minorities. I don't, however, think that should insulate him from criticism for remarks that (particularly) young people will hear. You can shut down a kid's ambitions pretty quickly by speaking before thinking and at the same time also teach a kid that it's okay to speak without thinking -- Reid is, after all, the Senate Majority Leader -- which just perpetuates the whole problem.
The President has accepted the apology and wants to move on. I believe him. Let's move on. Let's not forget, however, that there is no substitute for real communication outside the Beltway. When we don't understand something and have good motives, respectfully ask the question. It may shock the person being asked but if they know your motives are pure, they may admire your candor and give you a little free education. If they tell you the question offends them, apologize sincerely. There is nothing wrong with that.
Senator Reid, however, is in good company. Don't forget that our current Vice President talked during the primary campaign about how his current boss was "clean...", etc., as if that should surprise anyone. I have to admit that Democrats (yes, I am Democrat but hope I am never lumped together with Senator Reid and still cringe when I think of someone like Joe Biden sounding so stupid when it is clear that he isn't) have frequently done more damage to themselves than any Republican could.
The notion that the President's particular skin color (perhaps Reid will now suggest that Benjamin Moore come out with "Obama Black" as an update to its color wheel) and speaking voice either gave him an advantage or wasn't as frightening to some white voters might very well be true. I don't think we will ever know because polls dealing with attitudes about race and color are notoriously prone to participants lying to pollsters in an effort to appear less racist than they truly are. But "Negro dialect"? Where has Senator Reid been in the last few decades except for Washington, D.C. and Nevada?
I am not a linguistics expert by any means but I'll venture a guess that there are hundreds of English "dialects", many of which are shared across racial lines and that come along with differently-accented English depending on region, etc. In my 45 years on the planet, 30 of them engaged in some kind of productive work, 20 or so of them in New York City, I recall a few white guys from New York City who actually said that they "admired" me for speaking English that they believed was "unaccented". I think what they really meant -- and acknowledged -- was that I had a relatively flat, midwestern speaking voice and that my accent sounded like national broadcast news types. I have rarely listened to my own voice other than my voice mail announcements but I suppose they are right. It was also somewhat cultivated. I was raised in far Upstate New York where many people sound like they live in North Dakota, speaking nasally rather than from their diaphragm, almost as if they are speaking through a tube. I realized pretty early on that it sounded unattractive to me. My parents, for whatever reason, did not sound like many Upstaters, most notably because they didn't drop their gerunds and their flat affect was not so flat that it sounded like I was in the movie Fargo.
Accents are clearly learned and a child's school experience can trump the way English is spoken in their own homes. I recall my sister, who is 15 years younger than I am but raised in the same community, began to sound like a local at about the age of 12 or 13, just like many of her friends did. Since I was sure that her IQ was far higher than mine and that she would have many different career choices to consider, I told her to cut it out, to at least say her gerunds (no more goin', seein', bein'), because people who would interview her for university placement and jobs might find it a distraction. Since her writing was nearly flawless at an early age, it just didn't match, at least to my ear. She took the advice. Is that elitist? Maybe. I thought it was practical. Some years later, a very successful college friend of my partner's dropped her local Bostonian accent for very similar reasons. She could be a news reader and you would never know exactly from where she hailed. The same is true for many of my African American colleagues and friends, many of whom can slip into and out of different accents at the drop of a hat. Reid was probably not entirely wrong in what he said. It was the way he said it that is unnerving.
It is so obvious that despite our status (crumbling a bit but still there) as the Leader of the Free World, we have made insufficient progress when it comes to our national fear of racial, geographical and ethnic differences, of discussing race or acknowledging our lack of understanding of how race infects our politics and interactions with each other in workplaces and our neighborhoods. I dropped whatever fears I had about that in my early 30s. I asked questions of some of my African American colleagues. They seemed quite happy to tell me their views. It helped me tremendously.
No one can say that Reid hasn't been on the progressive side of the coin on issues important to racial and ethnic minorities. I don't, however, think that should insulate him from criticism for remarks that (particularly) young people will hear. You can shut down a kid's ambitions pretty quickly by speaking before thinking and at the same time also teach a kid that it's okay to speak without thinking -- Reid is, after all, the Senate Majority Leader -- which just perpetuates the whole problem.
The President has accepted the apology and wants to move on. I believe him. Let's move on. Let's not forget, however, that there is no substitute for real communication outside the Beltway. When we don't understand something and have good motives, respectfully ask the question. It may shock the person being asked but if they know your motives are pure, they may admire your candor and give you a little free education. If they tell you the question offends them, apologize sincerely. There is nothing wrong with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)