Poverty All Around US and Plenty to Share!

Today I speak on sad but important things.  As many of you know,  I have been documenting the economic and day-to-day well-being of people and towns I encounter on my journeys.  The news is not good, since most of these smaller towns are all but erased because of lack of jobs, and high levels of poverty.  I woke up this morning to the news that 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty.  This news was supplemented by news in a local paper here in Missouri that a friend of mine will lose his house (home) by way of a public auction at the end of this week (I will not link to this story out of respect to my friend's feelings and not wishing to advertise the sale).  The final nail in the morning coffee-coffin is the lingering reminder of a conversation I had regarding another friend who is desperately trying to figure out how to pay for her son's medication, since she has no health insurance. Health insurance costs will kill us all in time - is that what is wanted?  One wonders.

In the Washington Post article mentioned and linked to above, by Hope Yen, the article states that the 2009 "poverty level stood at $21,954 for a family of four." Wow.  This is more than poverty, this is eating off handouts and the occasional Micky-Ds.  Four people living on 21-22 thousand in this country?!  Not if that family wants heat, electricity, food, clothing and you know, the basic stuff.  It is time that our government totally revise the poverty level determination because I got to tell you, a family of four does not live off of 21 or 22 thousand a year.  You cannot live off this type of income in this country, unless you are getting money under the table that is not reported (pan-handling?). 

And indeed, as Yen reports, the government will be revising its calculation of poverty levels by incorporating the "rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty."  

I predict that even without these revisions, the poverty report for 2010 will be much worse, because the 99ers are growing and without any aid or jobs available, we will see the reality slap us in our faces.  The biggest culprit of this rising poverty lines besides lack of jobs (seeing how companies have been outsourcing jobs for decades) is health care.  The changes made in health care reform will not be enough to save many of us.  You can require a person to have health care, but that does not mean the person can afford to get the health care required.  Further, as companies switch from full-time workers to part-time workers, more and more of us will be out of health insurance.  This is the situation for my husband and I.  Consider this, companies get rid of full-time workers in order to avoid having to offer health benefits - it cuts into their profits.  Indeed, one place I work for has 5 full-time workers compared to over 180 part-time workers and, judging by the help wanted notices I see all the time, the part-timers will continue to grow. 

What we need is a true overhaul of how business and politics are conducted in this country - As I sit and watch the growing popularity of the Tea Party, I am deeply worried.  That is not to say that I do not hold equal contempt for the Republicans and Democrats counterparts as well.  But I do worry about partisan politics and divided ideologies that hinder our ability to actually make change.  We are seeing this now and it will only get worse. 

So, what should be done?  Please, you tell me!  Leave your comments and your thoughts as I would really like to know how you feel about all of this.  R

"Shotgun" Politics: When You Don't Get Your Way, Bring a Gun!

If I had not known better, I would have thought that this picture (By Jack Kurtz -- Associated Press) taken at a political event was produced in a country where guerrilla warfare was occurring, or where there was a type of military government, or something similar. But I now know better. Indeed, that this occurred here, in the US, at a political rally where Obama was in Arizona. The armed protesters might have acted within the law, as Alexi Mostrous reports for the Washington Post:

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Regardless of whether these armed protesters pointed their gun at anyone or not, this is “shotgun” politics--and it is not democratic.

What do I mean by "Shotgun" politics? I mean the use of force (implied deadly force) used to influence the outcome of a debate or a political action. Why is this not democratic? Democracy requires deliberation on a wide scale (national and local community) and on a small scale (family discussion, water cooler talks, BSing at the watering hole or hang out). For democracy to flourish, deliberation must be free and not directed or forced. For this to occur, participants who are engaging in any political discourse must not feel threatened and instead feel free to express her or his feelings, support those feelings openly, and present their arguments in a logical way. Talking around someone who is carrying an “AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder,” does not allow for a free and nonthreatening space of political deliberation. Democratic argumentation cannot occur under these conditions—only a form of terror and coercion. Terror is defined here as the following (using the good ol’ wordnetweb.princeton.edu):

The use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); ‘he used terror to make them confess.'

Sadly, shotgun politics is not only happening in Arizona (the dear state of my birth), but other places including on the net.

Meet Hal Turner (Picture by Jessica Hill for the Associated Press and used by the Washington Post), the internet radio host who decided to use his blog to protest the ruling of three federal judges when they “rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.” As reported by Peter Slevin for the Washington Post, in his story titled "Blogger's Case Could Test the Limits of Political Speech: New Jersey Man was Arrested After Writing That 3 Judges 'Deserve to Killed'," Hal Turner, angry that he is not getting his way, announced the following on June 6th:

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.”

The next day, we are told, he proceeded to post not only photographs of the Judges he thinks should be killed but also a map of the courthouse where they worked and “noting the placement of ‘anti-truck bomb barriers’” which might, the reader is left to gather, impede any killing potential—should one of Hal’s readers feel up to the task? This too is shotgun politics.

There is nothing democratic about shotgun politics and I do not care which political party you are supporting while strapping on your metal for political commentary or meetings. Such tactics equates ethical egoism in its worse form, stating loud and clear: only my self-interest matters here and the hell with the rest of you. Me, me, me, me. Democracy is not about ME but about US. Get with the program and play nicely with your fellow humans – Please.

R

U.S. Health Care versus France's Managed Care System

Both videos are from the TV show Sunday Morning on CBS, and were aired today: 8/16/2009.

About our current debate:

Watch CBS Videos Online

France's Managed Care System:

Privilege VS Rights and the Health Care Debate

These last few weeks in my ethics class, my students and I debated a great deal regarding what constitutes Privilege VS Rights and when we talk about rights, are we talking about "natural" or "socialized" rights? Our conversations are dealing with ethics in the realm of health care and affirmative action.

Although there are many people who believe strongly in "natural" rights (rights granted by the nature of being); I tend to define rights as being "socialized" rather than "natural," because for me . . . a natural right has to be a right shared by all humans and is not one that is granted to person by another person or law. Defined in this way, I can not think of any so called "natural" rights at all. Even our "right" to breath, exist, and act can be taken away from us. Our so-called right to think and hope and believe can also be done away with. As such, I see rights as being socialized agreements.

But what about privileges? How can we define this concept? After Googling the term, I got: "a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all." The key for me here is that it is a benefit not enjoyed by everyone--such as status, power, money and all that money can purchase, even the quality of an education.

Now, we can earn both rights and privileges and rights and privileges can also be taken away from us. For example, many rights guaranteed by the US constitution goes out the window once a person has broken a law. Our right to vote goes away, for example. So, rights can be taken away by law, by force or forfeited.

The question that remains is this - why do we conflate the two terms? Why call health care a "right" when it is a privilege (currently). Is there a point in time where "good" health care goes from being a right to becoming a privilege?

In our economy, health care, or at least much of it such as the really good machines and the really good medicine and the super good care, goes to those with the money to afford it -the privileged. Now we all have a "right" to health care in that if we are not insured, we can sill walk into a hospital and cannot be denied care - but we can be denied quality! And this is the key.

Can health care be a right if quality of care is contingent on what type of insurance you have or how much money/power you have. We all cannot be Dick Cheney and have a doctor following us around 24/7 now can we? This is privilege care (indeed!). So the question is this, why are we not bringing up the fact that most health care is a privilege in this country, because the right to health care does not include the right to QUALITY health care. A right can be taken away and or given but how conditional are we willing to allow it to be?

What do you think?!