I've been hearing the "NHS is corrupt and ruined by administrators" thing for some time now, it is a popular idea. I think the earliest reference I can remember is from the early 1980s when it was the subject of a Yes Minister episode. Which of course doesn't make it necessarily untrue, just that the idea itself is nothing new.
I found an article on healthcare rationing - it is an interesting read plus it has a bunch of links in the article which are relevant to this discussion.
I am just in awe that someone can compare two health insurance systems, one that's specifically engineered to make more money by delivering less care, and one that successfully ensures a world-class standard of care for 30 million people, and conclude the latter is inferior because it is "flat-out socialist in nature".
Canadians enjoy pretty much the same quality and range of care as Americans for a fraction the cost. Sometimes you may have to wait a little while for treatment in a non-life threatening situation, but that's rare, and still better than having to go bankrupt to pay for it, or paying insurance out of your paycheque for ten years and then suddenly being denied the coverage you need because you have a pre-existing condition or some shit. Canada outperforms the US in quality-of-life indicators such as life expectancy and infant death rate. I'm not saying that a Canadian-style system would work in the USA, in fact it would be disastrous. But this mantra about our healthcare being inferior simply because it's "socialist" and we have to shuffle up to dreary government depots in the dead of winter and beg for our monthly ration of Victory Bandages, is complete fucking horseshit.
Before I became a nurse, I worked evenings in a factory. I drove a forklift and made $7 an hour, dumping industrial waste. I went to school at night, online, and every Summer. My mother is a teacher and my dad is only ever intermittently employed, most recently because of his cancer. I took most of my nursing classes at junior college because that's all that the government would pay for and I couldn't afford to live anywhere else.
I may be white, but I don't think "privileged" quite covers it.
And personally, I find it lazy to throw up old chestnuts as you have when you can't or won't offer a better defense for your position. Because God knows I have no insight to the subject at hand, what with me being caucasian and all. :roll:
Look. I don't think you're going to listen, but I'm going to lay it out for you. You. Are. Privileged.
You grew up middle-class, if not rich. You had parents who could both read and write fluently. You likely grew up with books in the house. You grew up with plenty of food, most of it nutritious. You had a stable roof over your head. You didn't have to miss class in elementary school to take care of your younger siblings. When you got truly sick, you were taken to the doctor. You went to a decent school, provided with textbooks from at least the last decade or so. You probably had dental care and eye exams, so you could see the blackboard at school and weren't distracted from horrible cavity pain. You had examples of educated people around you. If your life suddenly collapsed, you have a familial support system that could afford to feed you and put you up on the couch for at least a little while.
You're male. Your rape risk is damn near nonexistant. In the vast majority of jobs, you'll be making more money than your female counterparts and will be considered first for promotions, regardless of job performance. People will listen to you more when you speak up, and have done so for your entire life. Teachers called on you more when you raised your hand. When and if you start a family, you won't have to worry about it affecting your career negatively, as a man with a family is considered "stable" while a woman with one is considered to be just working to fill the time in between kids. Doctors will dismiss your medical complaints less.
You're white. Your speech patterns (not grammar) don't count against you when speaking to a would-be employer on the phone. You will never, ever have to worry about people thinking that you're a thug when you go to the convenience store late at night. You don't have store employees following you around as a matter of course thinking you will steal. Again, your teachers called on you more. If you commit a crime and get caught, your prison sentence will most likely be much, much lighter than that of a person of color accused of the same crime. The vast majority of the people in power in your life will be the same race as you (the same sex, too, actually.) The vast, vast majority of political candidates will bend over backward to appeal to you, and this will be seen as incredibly normal. The only stereotypes against you are that you can't dance and are probably square.
You're straight. You can get married to someone you love and have nobody blink an eye. If you treat your partners badly, no one will blame it on your sexual orientation. You can talk openly about your relationships without having to worry that it will affect your job negatively. You don't have to worry about being beaten or killed for revealing your orientation to the wrong person. No major religion condemns you for your orientation, and neither does any major political party.
You're able-bodied. I shouldn't even have to explain this one. I'd mention that you're cisgendered too, but I don't think you'd know what that is or accept your privilege there, either.
So...tell me how you're not privileged again? And how none of those things helped you get to where you are now? And how no one else has any sort of disadvantage compared to you? And how those gosh-darned poor people have a choice, you know! They're just doing it out of laziness. If anyone wants to make money in this world and dares to want to not suffer and die from a lack of healthcare, all they have to do is exactly what you did.
As someone who grew up with every one of those privileges (okay, the parents weren't that well off, but they weren't poor) it disturbs me when people assume that life like that is the norm. Lack of education and poor health care are two of the biggest barriers to overcoming poverty and denying one of them when it's feasible to provide it is breathtakingly selfish.
Why do people not have a problem with subsidizing poor college students educations (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars apiece) but maybe a thousand a year for health care, no, suddenly that's socialist?
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
In any sane world I wouldn't have to risk my health because preventative health care is too expensive. There are millions of people whose health is in much worse shape and can't afford it either.
Any system that allows millions to suffer so that a few others can benefit slightly more (and only because they are willing to spend more money to keep it that way) is fucked up.
I'd mention that you're cisgendered too, but I don't think you'd know what that is or accept your privilege there, either.
oh my god I love you
also I was considering spurring people to create a social mobility thread but like I think you just spilled my own heart out for me so I don't really care any more
EDIT: More on-topic but still scathing, this health care system pushed me out of necessary mental health care by creating an 8-week waiting list for a consultation, refusing to pay more than 15% of my medication bills, and assigning me a whopping $500 of benefits yearly. Wonderful. Oh, and that was when I was able to leech my father's insurance-- a federal employee.
Now, I've had a cough with sharp abdominal pains for almost a month but there's nothing I can do about it because I don't even have a way to field the GP payment, and odds are he or she would just recommend me to exorbitantly-priced diagnostics. I've had an impacted wisdom tooth for two years, but I just live with the infrequent bouts of crippling pain from that. My eyeglasses prescription is out of date, and causing more and more damage to my eyes, but I can't afford to have it replaced.
I was diagnosed hypotensive/anemic the last time I was in a doctor's office, but I've never been able to do a follow-up or obtain nutritional advice outside of pamphlets so I could still be living an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, who knows
well, the doctors probably do but heck if they're talking
Before I became a nurse, I worked evenings in a factory. I drove a forklift and made $7 an hour, dumping industrial waste. I went to school at night, online, and every Summer. My mother is a teacher and my dad is only ever intermittently employed, most recently because of his cancer. I took most of my nursing classes at junior college because that's all that the government would pay for and I couldn't afford to live anywhere else.
I may be white, but I don't think "privileged" quite covers it.
And personally, I find it lazy to throw up old chestnuts as you have when you can't or won't offer a better defense for your position. Because God knows I have no insight to the subject at hand, what with me being caucasian and all. :roll:
Look. I don't think you're going to listen, but I'm going to lay it out for you. You. Are. Privileged.
You grew up middle-class, if not rich. You had parents who could both read and write fluently. You likely grew up with books in the house. You grew up with plenty of food, most of it nutritious. You had a stable roof over your head. You didn't have to miss class in elementary school to take care of your younger siblings. When you got truly sick, you were taken to the doctor. You went to a decent school, provided with textbooks from at least the last decade or so. You probably had dental care and eye exams, so you could see the blackboard at school and weren't distracted from horrible cavity pain. You had examples of educated people around you. If your life suddenly collapsed, you have a familial support system that could afford to feed you and put you up on the couch for at least a little while.
You're male. Your rape risk is damn near nonexistant. In the vast majority of jobs, you'll be making more money than your female counterparts and will be considered first for promotions, regardless of job performance. People will listen to you more when you speak up, and have done so for your entire life. Teachers called on you more when you raised your hand. When and if you start a family, you won't have to worry about it affecting your career negatively, as a man with a family is considered "stable" while a woman with one is considered to be just working to fill the time in between kids. Doctors will dismiss your medical complaints less.
You're white. Your speech patterns (not grammar) don't count against you when speaking to a would-be employer on the phone. You will never, ever have to worry about people thinking that you're a thug when you go to the convenience store late at night. You don't have store employees following you around as a matter of course thinking you will steal. Again, your teachers called on you more. If you commit a crime and get caught, your prison sentence will most likely be much, much lighter than that of a person of color accused of the same crime. The vast majority of the people in power in your life will be the same race as you (the same sex, too, actually.) The vast, vast majority of political candidates will bend over backward to appeal to you, and this will be seen as incredibly normal. The only stereotypes against you are that you can't dance and are probably square.
You're straight. You can get married to someone you love and have nobody blink an eye. If you treat your partners badly, no one will blame it on your sexual orientation. You can talk openly about your relationships without having to worry that it will affect your job negatively. You don't have to worry about being beaten or killed for revealing your orientation to the wrong person. No major religion condemns you for your orientation, and neither does any major political party.
You're able-bodied. I shouldn't even have to explain this one. I'd mention that you're cisgendered too, but I don't think you'd know what that is or accept your privilege there, either.
So...tell me how you're not privileged again? And how none of those things helped you get to where you are now? And how no one else has any sort of disadvantage compared to you? And how those gosh-darned poor people have a choice, you know! They're just doing it out of laziness. If anyone wants to make money in this world and dares to want to not suffer and die from a lack of healthcare, all they have to do is exactly what you did.
Let me tell yall what its like
Being male, middle class and white
Its a bitch, if you dont believe
Listen up to my new cd
But being well off isn't reason not to want betterment or change, is it?
I'm just trying gauge if the bitterness is towards the idea that America's shitty, or towards the basic attitude of wanting "more perfect."
I mean, there's a different between smacking someone who thinks they're so ruined by living in America, and thinking someone is just whiny and spoiled for wanting to make it better, or feeling that it could/should be.
I think it'd be interesting if America stopped helping the rest of the world for just one year.
Speaking of, man, how much could America help its own people, or other people that need it, if only the government would stop giving billions of dollars every year to Israel, who really doesn't need it?
I mean, that'd provide a whole lot of health care.
@electricity - the American healthcare system isn't the running joke of the world, especially in the medical community. Nobody particularly wants to work the general nurse/doctor jobs, and nobody particularly wants to be on the patient end, but there is recognition that it provides by far the most technical & prodcedural innovation in the world, as well as ample funding that doesn't exist in national systems. Don't be so quick to dismiss research & cutting-edge medicine, without it we'd still be using leeches. (Actually, we still are, but never mind)
Also, I completely disagree with your assertion about chances of catching things early being necessarily increased in national systems. Certainly the NHS is so apt to overcrowding that routine procedures are actually skipped or cut down, and doctors/nurses are dealing with many more patients, so there is less chance of catching things early. The number of standard tests etc that are carried out on US patients is far higher than those on NHS patients.
I wasn't arguing the American health system can't provide extremely good technical care, what I was arguing was that it only does so if you're wealthy to begin with and that is a health system I don't really care for. Furthermore, the idea that the R&D of this system is somehow a result of screwing the lower class doesn't fly - world class R&D is generated by a lot of countries with a myriad of care giving systems - the fact the US is simply a wealthy nation overall is a better metric.
So what, we're going to gut our healthcare system, the most advanced and successful in the world, to better suit 8% of the population?
Bahahaha! The American healthcare system is the running joke of the world. We fly there to have expensive and experimental procedures done on our citizenry, but thank the various gods that we don't live there.
I don't know where you're from, but I can't really think of anywhere that offers the same level of speed and competence that the US does.
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Iceland
Higher life expentancy, lower rates for stuff like infant mortality then the U.S.
Sure, United States has the best doctors in the big stuff, but when it comes to actually taking care of the entire population...it's not.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
Trowzilla forgot one very important stereotype: He Can't Jump
For fucks sake, just because someone isn't at the absolute bottom of the scale in terms of the possible hardships in life, it doesn't mean they are privileged. Used objectively, the standard definition of that term means a top class of people who have more of [whatever] than everyone else. Used comparatively, sure - but that isn't what you are doing.
If you want to say: he is privileged compared to little Johnny in Afghanistan, sure.
If you want to say: being white is a privileged position in America compared to being black, I can at least understand your position.
But do not point at anyone in the world who doesn't fit your idea of what passes for privilege, and shout at them. Because for one, I guarantee that every single person in western countries is privileged by a global perspective, but there are still a shitload of them who are clearly not privileged. Or perhaps it isn't even that - perhaps you think that posessing any of those accidental traits makes you privileged?
Hey, little Johnny ISN'T GAY! He's priviledged!
Hey, there are some black people who aren't women! PRIVILEGED FUCKERS!
If I were to be as mental about it as you clearly want to be, I could argue that black, female, transgender people were privileged too, as by some bizarre legal definition of the word, it also means people with a special set of circumstances to whom the rules don't apply. Pretty sure I could make that argument for all sorts of programs like affirmative action and such.
But I don't, because I'm not trying to be a self-righteous prick.
I think that when you have an education, stable family, mental health, money, food and shelter, you are pretty damn priviledged considering that billions of people in this world lack those things.
Well great, then like I said above, everyone in the west is 'privileged'. What a useful term. Everyone in all our countries is privileged, even the comparatively dirt-poor people. Reading Trowzilla's post, I don't think that was quite her point, but it is the logical endpoint to it, as you illustrate.
Next time some homeless bloke on the street asks me for money, I'll be sure to tell him: "But you're so privileged! You live in a major metropolitan city, you have a set of warm clothes, you are white, male, probably had some education at some point in your life, and your hat has almost £3 in change! Why that's several weeks wages to an African farmer! Be grateful you privileged bastard!"
Privilege, like poverty, is a relative term, you utter morons. Trying to compare it on a global scale is pointless, ridiculous and isn't helping anyone. Berating someone you don't know on the internet for being white, male, educated, and having no stated disabilities as "privileged" just shows an extraordinarily simplistic view of how social and economic systems work. Summing up all the potential disadvantages in the world, giving a tick against the name of anyone who doesn't have one, and assuming that many ticks = privilege, is abject stupidity - it gives no weighting to importance, effect, or local effect of those disadvantages, which - by the by - are the entire fucking point. Being black in America might disadvantage you. Being white in Zimbabwe might do the same.
Grow up.
PS I also fail to see what this ad hom attack on one poster's 'privileged' status had to do with opinions about healthcare? Are privileged people's opinions less valid now?
Most people on this forum are privileged in one way or another. Plus, you can have one set of privileges while not having another; shocking, I know! For example, I have white privilege, class privilege, am in a straight relationship which means straight privilege, cisgendered privilege, ablebodied privilege, and probably plenty more that don't leap immediately to mind. However, I'm also a woman, which means no male privilege for me (and this is a big deal, considering that pretty much the whole world has sexism issues), I'm not a Christian, and as much as I code as straight to strangers, I'm not. The things I'm privileged for aren't bad things to be, and it doesn't make me a bad person to be those things, but it means I have to be careful when speaking about other people's experience, because I'm doing it from a position of power, and I don't and can't fully know what it's like to not have that privilege.
Example time! I'm going to use a broad one to make a point, but there's a lot of much less obvious examples: AIDS in Africa. Me, with my white, educated, middle-class self, might say something like "Those Africans need to stop having so much sex and use condoms, dammit." I might say this because, let's see, I can go one block to the 7-11 and pick up condoms cheaply whenever I want to, I live in a culture that's not saturated with the Catholic church, I am under very little cultural pressure to have lots and lots of babies, I have immediate access to lots of accurate information about STIs and the way they spread, I live in a culture where it is far more acceptable to refuse to have sex with a man if he's not wearing a condom, I am far less likely to be raped, I have the money to spend on condoms, I can leave my relationship without losing all my assets and becoming incredibly vulnerable, etc. If I assume that using a condom or not having sex is as easy for someone in Africa as it is for me, I am looking through an issue through the lens of privilege. In a lot of cases, it means I am judging people for not making decisions as I would make them, while ignoring the factors that lead to their decisions.
Now, how does this relate to healthcare? Healthcare in this country (America) is very much a class issue, and class issues almost always have ties to race, gender, and ability, to mention a few. In America, the quality of care available is very, very high, but the availabilty is extremely circumscribed by wealth. People regularly die from issues that have easy, relatively cheap treatments; one example that comes to mind is a little boy who died a few years ago from complications of leaving a tooth infection untreated. His mother, by the way, had been trying to get him treated, but couldn't find a dentist who would take her insurance. Eventually, he was brought to the hospital with a brain infection, went through two operations and $250,000 in care, and died anyway. Here's a link, if you want sources.
Seen through privilege, the health care issue is one of poor people being too lazy to work and get good, private health insurance. However, we've already had people in this thread who've stood up and said, I work hard, but I still can't get insurance. The point of bringing up privilege is to point out to those that say, "If I can work and get health insurance, anyone can," that many factors keep people from doing exactly that. Health insurance isn't like buying a car, after all; you can work around not having a car, you can save up and plan to get a car at a later point, and there are alternative transportation options. When you get sick or injured, you need treatment as soon as possible, putting off treatment in hopes of saving up money generally means the condition gets worse and the treatment gets more expensive, and the alternative is, often, to die, which in no alternative at all.
Trowzilla, you are going on the list of 'posters who rock' (Yes, there's a list - Tube keeps it under his bed).
I didn't understand whether you meant you were straight or not ('code as straight to strangers') but that doesn't stop it from being an excellent post.
but it means I have to be careful when speaking about other people's experience, because I'm doing it from a position of power, and I don't and can't fully know what it's like to not have that privilege.
Even if you do share skin colour, gender, or whatever, what means you can talk about other people's experience? It should be blatently obvious that just because I'm white, it doesn't mean I speak for all white people. You can only ever talk about your own experience, or the experiences of others as they tell them to you. Your positions of power & privilege are ridiculous because you say they exist to help you judge what you can say about other people's experience, when the answer is: you can't speak for other people's experience at all.
Me, with my white, educated, middle-class self, might say something like "Those Africans need to stop having so much sex and use condoms, dammit." I might say this because, let's see, etc
You might say that because you have no understanding of Africa. Privilege isn't what you are trying to guard against, ignorance and stupidity is.
Ignorance = not knowing conditions in Africa you outline.
Stupidity = assuming that therefore those conditions are similar to yours
So you say privilege, I say ignorance? Just a semantic difference, we're all happy friends, and we can all go home? No, not in this case. Here, the semantics matter.
1. I outline exactly the same opinion and information about Africa, and call someone ignorant for the above statement. They might not like it, but ignorance is just lack of knowledge. It accurately describes the case. More to the point, they can do something about it. If you are ignorant, you can learn about the subject, and stop being ignorant.
2. You call someone privileged for the same. What can they do? It isn't their fault that they are white, male, Christian? But in the context 'privilege' is used (you can't know because you're privileged) it's used as a censure. It pisses people off, but there is nothing they can do about it. You aren't offering a way to fix the situation, or help them understand, you are just saying: you can't understand because of who you are. Well, they will always be white, male, etc. How can they ever try to understand?
That is why it is self-righteous. It is bullshit because you aren't using it to say: hey, don't speak for other people. You are using it to align what those people might say on your side. You don't know this because of privilege, but I do, because I'm on their side! Why don't you tell people who agree with you, because many are presumably still white, middle-class etc, that they are wrong because they are privileged? Why does privilege make your argument true, and Atomic Ross's false? If it doesn't, then how was it relevant to your debate with him? It is a cheap shot, and it is false.
More to the point, it isn't something I've ever heard but from nice, white, middle-class, left-wing, privileged folks. The kind who like to think they understand these things better, because they tout concepts like the importance of 'privilege'. You send me an African woman talking about her experience with AIDS; her I will listen to. You claiming some similarity (any similarity) with her experience does not interest me.
Which is why I am absolutely amazed that you are making this argument of 'privilege' against someone who, as a fucking nurse, has both earned a bit of respect for his opinion on the subject, and sees a shitload more of the practical reality on the ground than you (who I'm guessing on pure probability, are not a medical professional). If anyone is privileged in this argument, it is you; you don't have to deal with ER shite, hospital bureaucracy, and insurance companies. That you are berating him for not understanding a situation he sees day in and out, because he disagrees with your political assessment of that reality, simply makes you an arrogant, blinkered fool.
He wasn't looking at the situation through privilege. He was looking at it through experience. You are looking at it through privilege. Even though I don't agree with him, by the rationale you use above, I'm more inclined to listen to his opinion than yours.
For fucks sake, just because someone isn't at the absolute bottom of the scale in terms of the possible hardships in life, it doesn't mean they are privileged. Used objectively, the standard definition of that term means a top class of people who have more of [whatever] than everyone else. Used comparatively, sure - but that isn't what you are doing.
If you want to say: he is privileged compared to little Johnny in Afghanistan, sure.
If you want to say: being white is a privileged position in America compared to being black, I can at least understand your position.
Okay, if you insist... He is privileged compared to tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford health care.
Okay, if you insist... He is privileged compared to tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford health care.
I see your point.
Wonderful. How about instead of picking on the one technical linguistic point, you address the several more substantial points I made, because as I noted above, that statement you have there is still of dubious accuracy, and absolutely no use.
Just in case it escaped you; what you are doing there is answering the start position of an argument. The idea is to read the whole thing, and answer the end position. Tends to be more useful. Also avoids the impression that you are just going for the easy shots because you can't hack the hard questions.
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
He wasn't looking at the situation through privilege. He was looking at it through experience. You are looking at it through privilege.
No, he was looking at the situation through privilege. He dismissed the experiences of the people he was judging, because they weren
t (and never would be) his, and therefore must be personal failings. His privileges made it easy to dismiss their experiences, and so he did, rather than consider how their status affected their lives.
And for the record, privilege is something conferred onto you based on these things (being white, male, etc.). No one argued differently.
Narom on
<cursive>Narom</cursive>
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
A lot of people can't afford even a fairly low cost. My new glasses are a Christmas present this year and cost about $200 with the exam and all; if I was being especially thrifty, I could've probably managed about $150, but it's easy to think of situations where someone just doesn''t have an extra $150 to spend. Plus, I'm a pretty basic prescription: nearsighted to different degrees in both eyes, but it's still a lot cheaper for me to get lenses than someone with astigmatism or who needs bifocals.
poshniallo, I'm more-or-less bisexual and in a straight relationship at the moment, so people mostly assume I'm straight. It gives me certain advantages that homosexuals don't have, but those advantages depend on me not doing anything to change the assumption that I'm straight, and if I was in a relationship with a woman, I would code as gay.
Not Sarastro, you and I have argued before, so I'm not sure if you're intending to listen. The best thing a privileged person can do is to educate themselves, be careful about talking about situations that they're not in, and try not to judge before learning more about the situation. Atomic Ross said straight up that "If I can make it, anyone can," and "I'm hardly privileged." I was not attacking his experience in the ER; I was stating that he was ignoring the factors that helped him get to his current position, and discounting the experiences of other people. He sees poverty, but because he grew up in certain circumstances, he can afford to discount the factors that lead to poverty. (Note: growing up middle-class is not a bad thing. Pretending that it didn't give you any advantages is definitely a bad thing.) He's looking at the healthcare issue through his experience, which includes privilege, just like if I was to make the argument that Africans should just use condoms and stop having so much sex, I'd be looking at it through my experience, which also involves privilege. Seeing a position "day in and day out" doesn't make one educated on that situation, just as a prison guard is not necessarily educated about the causes of crime. Denying one's privilege doesn't help your argument, but accepting the privileges you have and making the attempt to educate yourself about the experience of those that do not have your privileges can only help.
Plus, there are some things that, if you haven't lived through them, you can never expect to fully understand, but you should still make the attempt to understand as far as you can. I would never tell Oboro that I understand being TG more than she does, but I can research transgenderism, I can read about the experience of transgendered individuals, and I can work on the best understanding I can get, AND if I'm being short-sighted or ignorant without meaning to and she corrects me, I can apologize and work on understanding her experience better. For a different example, think of what happened when someone on these forums (I don't remember who) made a comment that rape wasn't really a terrible thing and didn't hurt; that person was discounting the experience of those that went through rape, did not make an attempt to educate him- or herself before commenting, and ended up pissing off most of the board (quite rightfully.)
As for start position vs. end position: the end position of Atomic Ross's argument was that universal healthcare wouldn't work because people are noncompliant with health care, so they don't deserve to have said health care, and that making people work for their health care ensured that it would be used strictly by the deserving. First, the idea of deserving needs examination; the factors in people not complying with doctor's instructions are generally based of class (as related to addiction, nutrition, work, housing, and access to medicine and follow-up appointments) and, as such, are not generally a matter of people making a free choice not to do things that would help them stay healthy. Restricting healthcare only to the compliant only works if people can make a free, informed choice about whether or not to comply. Second, many people have spoken up in these forums offering their personal examples that people can work hard, do everything "right," and still not have access to healthcare.
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
Christ, isn't that like AU$350? I got mine for about $120, $55 out of pocket because I've got private cover. They're not designer or whatever, but they do the job and they've got that fancy coating stuff and all.
Not Sarastro, you and I have argued before, so I'm not sure if you're intending to listen. The best thing a privileged person can do is to educate themselves, be careful about talking about situations that they're not in, and try not to judge before learning more about the situation. Atomic Ross said straight up that "If I can make it, anyone can," and "I'm hardly privileged." I was not attacking his experience in the ER; I was stating that he was ignoring the factors that helped him get to his current position, and discounting the experiences of other people. He sees poverty, but because he grew up in certain circumstances, he can afford to discount the factors that lead to poverty. (Note: growing up middle-class is not a bad thing. Pretending that it didn't give you any advantages is definitely a bad thing.) He's looking at the healthcare issue through his experience, which includes privilege, just like if I was to make the argument that Africans should just use condoms and stop having so much sex, I'd be looking at it through my experience, which also involves privilege. Seeing a position "day in and day out" doesn't make one educated on that situation, just as a prison guard is not necessarily educated about the causes of crime. Denying one's privilege doesn't help your argument, but accepting the privileges you have and making the attempt to educate yourself about the experience of those that do not have your privileges can only help.
Plus, there are some things that, if you haven't lived through them, you can never expect to fully understand, but you should still make the attempt to understand as far as you can. I would never tell Oboro that I understand being TG more than she does, but I can research transgenderism, I can read about the experience of transgendered individuals, and I can work on the best understanding I can get, AND if I'm being short-sighted or ignorant without meaning to and she corrects me, I can apologize and work on understanding her experience better. For a different example, think of what happened when someone on these forums (I don't remember who) made a comment that rape wasn't really a terrible thing and didn't hurt; that person was discounting the experience of those that went through rape, did not make an attempt to educate him- or herself before commenting, and ended up pissing off most of the board (quite rightfully.)
I see nothing in there that addresses precisely what said in the post before, and I see quite a lot which parrots things I've already said. To recap since you missed it:
You say privilege, I say ignorance. Like I pointed out above, we aren't disagreeing on the basic principle of assuming the experience of others. But my version has an implicit way to fix the problem (learn stuffs), yours does not (one cannot change one's background). I'm disagreeing with your method of shouting 'privilege'. You have yet to show me why describing this as 'privilege' is any more accurate or helpful than describing it as ignorance. Please do so if you can.
I am also disagreeing with the way that it is used in arguments, for example, that you don't accuse anyone who agrees with you that their opinion is invalid because it is privileged. Explain that please.
(In response to your point that time as an ER nurse =! universal knowledge on healthcare; of course this is true. But surely knowledge gained from time as an ER nurse > your knowledge as a non-professional / expert in the field?)
As for start position vs. end position: the end position of Atomic Ross's argument was [1]that universal healthcare wouldn't work because people are noncompliant with health care, [2]so they don't deserve to have said health care, and that [3]making people work for their health care ensured that it would be used strictly by the deserving.
...and this is where you just start misrepresenting stuff. Quotes or it didn't happen, so I'll give you some quotes:
But people willing to pay for better care should be entitled to it, and unfortunately until an amendment is passed, healthcare isn't a right. Even in socialized care, reformers like John Edwards are demanding patient accountability
That is a statement on the reality of how things are, not a statement of intent, how they should be.
My belief on the matter is that in any system that requires my tax dollars going to pay for the care of others (especially in the event of me using my own, privately-funded insurance), I do not support a program that would allow for those types of people to benefit from free care. I'll support subsidized care for poor children and the legitimately disabled, but simply being poor is not a disability to me. There are ways to better yourself to get out of that situation, just as there are poor life choices that entrench you all the moreso. No one ever moved out of poverty by being enabled.
He specifically separates this from the rest of what he says from experience, and notes that it is simply his opinion. That isn't the absolute statement of truth you imply, "making people work for their healthcare ensured it would be used strictly by the deserving"
First, the idea of deserving needs examination; the factors in people not complying with doctor's instructions are generally based of class (as related to addiction, nutrition, work, housing, and access to medicine and follow-up appointments) and, as such, are not generally a matter of people making a free choice not to do things that would help them stay healthy.
...specifically do not note your opinion. No - you do not get to say "as such, are not generally a matter of people making a free choice" and = truth. That is an opinion. It is a matter of serious debate in the outside world, even if it is accepted as a forum truth here. Majority thinking doesn't make it true. You offer precisely zero proof for that assertion, where Atomic Ross has written several pages giving examples and citing his experiences in the field.
...and at that point, after he had posted some rather nuanced, experienced and insightful accounts of the reality of healthcare from his perspective, outlined the stated opinions they had led him to (in fact, how they had changed his previous opinions), and after he had been consistently protesting at being misrepresented and strawmanned by Feral, Cat and others - others who I note, don't seem to have a shred of experience of the US healthcare system, and in some cases, don't even fucking live there but are talking from 'experience - at THAT point, you waltz in and start mouthing off about privilege, saying:
you'd rather complain about those lazy, lazy poor people, as if no other factor works at keeping the impoverished in bad conditions but their own sloth, and as if nobody ever was influenced by their environment for good or ill.
Really? I notice you don't show where he made those complaints? Quotes or it never fucking happened.
You just took the lazy, strawmanned position of those you already agreed with, totally ignored what he had actually said, and happily jumped on the social justice bandwagon. You should be ashamed of your lazy, ignorant argument, and in keeping with the theme, you show signs that you are acting from a 'position of privilege' in this forum, assuming that because your opinions & that of your friends are the majority opinions, they are necessarily true and the other side has nothing worthy to say.
In fact, having re-read over the arguments with Atomic Ross quite thoroughly, most of you should be ashamed at your intellectual dishonesty; Feral, Cat, even Electricity, who is usually pretty thorough. You totally misrepresented a very reasonable, incisive and detailed account of his experiences in ER reality, & attacked it because you didn't like the opinion he has earned from it. The point of debate is to learn from opposing views and test your own against them, not twist and strawman them so you can easily dismiss any challenge to your blinkered worldview. I am absolutely serious, read it again and be ashamed if you have any decency.
So Trowzilla: now I've read and replied to your post. Before you imply that I don't listen, please read and respond to my points, rather than giving me a third definition of what you mean by 'privilege'. I get it. So here's a challenge - try including some substance in your arguments instead of repetition and hawking your pet beliefs.
My belief on the matter is that in any system that requires my tax dollars going to pay for the care of others (especially in the event of me using my own, privately-funded insurance), I do not support a program that would allow for those types of people to benefit from free care. I'll support subsidized care for poor children and the legitimately disabled, but simply being poor is not a disability to me. There are ways to better yourself to get out of that situation, just as there are poor life choices that entrench you all the moreso. No one ever moved out of poverty by being enabled.
But ask yourself this: should it be the legal obligation for taxpayers to support healthcare programs, especially considering the inverse relationship between the amount of tax paid to support the system and the population who would use it? In my book, not only is that a misappropriation of property, but of personal liberty as well. Not to mention it being flat-out socialist in nature.
Quite a lot of AR's posts were balanced and sensible, but when pushed he started with the 'non-compliant' and then moved on to implying that poor people didn't deserve health care.
I'd have to quote all of his posts to show you, but there is a clear debate going on: 'Some types of people shouldn't be looked after by the system' 'But you're privileged - how can you know about their lives?' 'I'm not privileged, I'm normal' 'Yes, you are, and you've just told us about how the system helped you'
And for the love of god, can you manage to post without the abusive tone? Actually, I'm not even going to go with a rhetorical question - can you, Not Sarastro? Can you post without being aggressive?
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
Christ, isn't that like AU$350? I got mine for about $120, $55 out of pocket because I've got private cover. They're not designer or whatever, but they do the job and they've got that fancy coating stuff and all.
Here, you can get two pair (without anything fancy, granted, but the coating is like 30 bucks or so) for $99.
Quite a lot of AR's posts were balanced and sensible, but when pushed he started with the 'non-compliant' and then moved on to implying that poor people didn't deserve health care.
He did no such thing. As I quoted above, he stated that nobody deserves health-care as a fact: this is true, health-care is not a right in the US, is it? That he agrees with that state of affairs is a perfectly valid opinion, and not nearly the "olol its poor people's own fault" statement that some here would like it to have been. Argue with his opinion on the facts if you like, but don't say "it isn't true because you're privileged". That is ad hom, and wrong.
I'd have to quote all of his posts to show you, but there is a clear debate going on: [1]'Some types of people shouldn't be looked after by the system' [2]'But you're privileged - how can you know about their lives?' 'I'm not privileged, I'm normal' 'Yes, you are, and you've just told us about how the system helped you'
The disjunct between statements 1 and 2 there are the problem. Paraphrasing AR: "Some types of people shouldn't be looked after by the system" yes, but in full "...this is my opinion, because in my experience of working ER's, this, that and the other are the practical reality of how that system works & how those people use it".
Statement 2 (Trowzilla and others) comes in and refuses to address the second part, and just accuses him of being privileged and not understanding the situation. It totally ignores his stated reasoning and evidence, and simply attacks him on the basis of their subjective social justice opinions. That is why it is fallacious argument and intellectually dishonest.
And for the love of god, can you manage to post without the abusive tone? Actually, I'm not even going to go with a rhetorical question - can you, Not Sarastro? Can you post without being aggressive?
Is this post aggressive towards you? Disagreement is conflict, but there isn't much I can do about that. I'm consciously aggressive in response to aggression, or where I feel people are deserving of some scorn for their action/argument (this case). There are plenty of posters on these forums, including a lot of mods, who post aggressive opinions without nearly the same attempt to actually back it up with reason & argument, so I'm not entirely sure why you are singling me out: as far as I'm concerned, weak and fallacious argument is a greater sin in debate than an aggressive tone.
Or consider that this might just be the difference between you growing up with one model of academic & public debate, and myself growing up with another? Check out the Houses of Parliament sometime, it's a bear pit. Come and see some of the debates at my university in the pub after lectures, they get down and dirty, but nobody cries about aggression because everyone recognises that it remains within the debate; it's not personal, and nobody's opinions are sacrosanct and safe from attack. I believe that is in the rules here somewhere.
TLDR: Different strokes.
PS I just noticed your sig. Ironic? Otherwise, why does someone saying I hate therefore I am have a problem with aggressive arguments?
the U.S. sorely needs a healthcare system that places more emphasis on preventative care and simple, routine health maintenance rather than expensive and ongoing treatments for chronic illnesses that could easily be preventable. this is one of the worst failings of the "free market"; it encourages high-priced and ongoing treatments instead of low cost, efficient care.
at the same time, i don't want the U.S. Government solely in charge of health insurance. there are already incredible amounts of difficulty managing programs like Medicare, including ongoing, unchecked fraud ranging into the millions. i also want to make sure that doctors, nurses, and other health providers are supported and encouraged in giving their patients the best care for their needs, not the kind of care strictly limited by Government rules OR HMOs. a hybrid system really seems to be up my alley for all of these reasons.
the U.S. also needs to REALLY focus on reducing environmental pollutants, especially carcinogens, as well as promote healthier lifestyles and diets. these are incredibly detrimental to health, and yet they somehow escape the health care radar.
Which pollutants are you talking about? As far as I know (working as an environmental scientist), there are regulations at the Federal and/or State outlining emission specification limits for all carcinogens and many non-carcinogens.
The point that all these posters have been making is that Ross' comments are distorted by the lens of his privilege. And because of that, the accuracy of said statements is...questionable. The fact that he said "I don't think poverty is a disability" pretty much shows that he doesn't understand the problems of poverty and how it's a massive trap that can be very difficult to escape. Now, why doesn't he understand the issue of poverty? Two reasons, interconnected - he's never been truly poor, and because of that, he's never bothered to actually understand the plight of the poor. Instead, he spouts bullshit bromides about how they "need to make better decisions."
You're trying to say that we're not giving solutions - but that's not the case at all. We give solutions - but they're based in the understanding that we have of the problem, whereas your "solutions" are at best ineffective and at worse harmful, because you refuse to grasp WHAT the problem is in the first place. Ross tried to say that those who don't comply with the orders of their doctor shouldn't be given care, but as people have continually pointed out, non-compliance is not just a willful refusal - consider the elderly person forced to cut pills in half to make ends meet because they can't afford to purchase their medicines. Yes, they aren't complying, but the reasons for doing so are not the cut and dried issue that you seem to think it is.
You also seem to keep citing his experience in the ER as trumping the criticisms leveled at him, which again is bullshit. Nobody is discounting his experiences - but from his commentary, it's pretty clear that he's pretty damn ignorant of the underlying issues that motivate what he sees. Because of that, his commentary will never be anything more than a superficial look at the matter, because he refuses to understand the dynamics that lurk beneath. And his refusal to do so is firmly rooted in the privileges that he has thinks to his position in society. He doesn't think he needs to actually understand poverty because he's never been truly poor.
So, as far as I can see it, the only one who's been dishonest in this argument...is you.
AngelHedgie, I should lime your whole post. I had a big reply to Not Sarastro typed out, but you said it much better.
Not Sarastro: You wanted my opinion? Here you go: since the emergency room has to treat people and the hospital ends up eating the cost when they can't pay, Americans are already paying for the healthcare of those without insurance through increased fees. Now, the problem with that is, people without insurance can't get preventative care and can't see a regular doctor when they get sick, so they tend to wait until they are very, very sick before they go to the emergency room, which means treating them ends up costing a whole lot more, and they suffer more. Now, to me, a system of spreading healthcare costs out that emphasizes preventative care and minimizes suffering is a much, much better idea than a system of spreading healthcare costs out that doesn't allow preventative care and makes sure that people get as sick as possible before treatment.
Also, socialism is not a dirty word to me. I would rather have a system where people have to wait to get treated for non-urgent conditions than one where people die because they can't get treated for anything. Besides, waiting several months for a test doesn't seem that different; I've had to wait two months to get a biopsy to make sure I didn't have cancer under the supposedly-efficient system, and I had to pay out-of-pocket for it, so I'm not really seeing any advantage. Like education, I feel that universal access to healthcare would have sufficient benefits to everyone to offset the increased taxes, even the people who currently have private insurance. After all, the employer benefits by having a healthy workforce, we all benefit by limiting the spread of disease by keeping people immunized and healthy, etc.
Wait has someone been genuinely implying that socialism is a filthy word? Jesus christ, this isn't the 1960's. the red menace is gone, and we don't need to add more religion to the dollar bill to show how much we're not Russia.
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
I have -10.50 vision in my right eye and -10.75 in my left. The thinnest, lightest, most advanced lenses that money can buy still are more than a quarter inch thick in my prescription, and without the top-notch anti-glare coatings I cant see shit at night on the road for headlight glare. I can't wear contact lenses because I have (a) terrible astigmatism and (b) a corneal dystrophy that peels off part of my eye (with accompanying excruciating pain) any time I remove contacts after extended wear.
You literally [/i]cannot buy[/i] glasses lenses more expensive than mine, and I literally cannot see well enough to live my life without getting those super-expensive lenses. I've tried before to get cheaper lenses, and after a couple days I have to get them redone.
With decent vision coverage the lenses alone (not including frames, as I've kept the same frames for about seven years) came to $170. It'd be something like $440 without insurance. Oh, and the exam to get them was only $15, that same exam is well over $100 without insurance.
Let me put this into forum-appropriate terms: without insurance, I have to buy the equivalent of a Playstation 3 every year just so I can see well enough to live. With insurance, it's just a DS every year.
Posts
I found an article on healthcare rationing - it is an interesting read plus it has a bunch of links in the article which are relevant to this discussion.
Canadians enjoy pretty much the same quality and range of care as Americans for a fraction the cost. Sometimes you may have to wait a little while for treatment in a non-life threatening situation, but that's rare, and still better than having to go bankrupt to pay for it, or paying insurance out of your paycheque for ten years and then suddenly being denied the coverage you need because you have a pre-existing condition or some shit. Canada outperforms the US in quality-of-life indicators such as life expectancy and infant death rate. I'm not saying that a Canadian-style system would work in the USA, in fact it would be disastrous. But this mantra about our healthcare being inferior simply because it's "socialist" and we have to shuffle up to dreary government depots in the dead of winter and beg for our monthly ration of Victory Bandages, is complete fucking horseshit.
Look. I don't think you're going to listen, but I'm going to lay it out for you. You. Are. Privileged.
You grew up middle-class, if not rich. You had parents who could both read and write fluently. You likely grew up with books in the house. You grew up with plenty of food, most of it nutritious. You had a stable roof over your head. You didn't have to miss class in elementary school to take care of your younger siblings. When you got truly sick, you were taken to the doctor. You went to a decent school, provided with textbooks from at least the last decade or so. You probably had dental care and eye exams, so you could see the blackboard at school and weren't distracted from horrible cavity pain. You had examples of educated people around you. If your life suddenly collapsed, you have a familial support system that could afford to feed you and put you up on the couch for at least a little while.
You're male. Your rape risk is damn near nonexistant. In the vast majority of jobs, you'll be making more money than your female counterparts and will be considered first for promotions, regardless of job performance. People will listen to you more when you speak up, and have done so for your entire life. Teachers called on you more when you raised your hand. When and if you start a family, you won't have to worry about it affecting your career negatively, as a man with a family is considered "stable" while a woman with one is considered to be just working to fill the time in between kids. Doctors will dismiss your medical complaints less.
You're white. Your speech patterns (not grammar) don't count against you when speaking to a would-be employer on the phone. You will never, ever have to worry about people thinking that you're a thug when you go to the convenience store late at night. You don't have store employees following you around as a matter of course thinking you will steal. Again, your teachers called on you more. If you commit a crime and get caught, your prison sentence will most likely be much, much lighter than that of a person of color accused of the same crime. The vast majority of the people in power in your life will be the same race as you (the same sex, too, actually.) The vast, vast majority of political candidates will bend over backward to appeal to you, and this will be seen as incredibly normal. The only stereotypes against you are that you can't dance and are probably square.
You're straight. You can get married to someone you love and have nobody blink an eye. If you treat your partners badly, no one will blame it on your sexual orientation. You can talk openly about your relationships without having to worry that it will affect your job negatively. You don't have to worry about being beaten or killed for revealing your orientation to the wrong person. No major religion condemns you for your orientation, and neither does any major political party.
You're able-bodied. I shouldn't even have to explain this one. I'd mention that you're cisgendered too, but I don't think you'd know what that is or accept your privilege there, either.
So...tell me how you're not privileged again? And how none of those things helped you get to where you are now? And how no one else has any sort of disadvantage compared to you? And how those gosh-darned poor people have a choice, you know! They're just doing it out of laziness. If anyone wants to make money in this world and dares to want to not suffer and die from a lack of healthcare, all they have to do is exactly what you did.
As someone who grew up with every one of those privileges (okay, the parents weren't that well off, but they weren't poor) it disturbs me when people assume that life like that is the norm. Lack of education and poor health care are two of the biggest barriers to overcoming poverty and denying one of them when it's feasible to provide it is breathtakingly selfish.
Why do people not have a problem with subsidizing poor college students educations (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars apiece) but maybe a thousand a year for health care, no, suddenly that's socialist?
I'm a walking example of how the health care system in this country has failed utterly. Relatively healthy young adult male living on his own without debt, and I still can't afford coverage that'd be adequate for the few health conditions I have. I finally got my parents to put me on theirs for a year just to get new glasses, and that wasn't cheap.
In any sane world I wouldn't have to risk my health because preventative health care is too expensive. There are millions of people whose health is in much worse shape and can't afford it either.
Any system that allows millions to suffer so that a few others can benefit slightly more (and only because they are willing to spend more money to keep it that way) is fucked up.
also I was considering spurring people to create a social mobility thread but like I think you just spilled my own heart out for me so I don't really care any more
EDIT: More on-topic but still scathing, this health care system pushed me out of necessary mental health care by creating an 8-week waiting list for a consultation, refusing to pay more than 15% of my medication bills, and assigning me a whopping $500 of benefits yearly. Wonderful. Oh, and that was when I was able to leech my father's insurance-- a federal employee.
Now, I've had a cough with sharp abdominal pains for almost a month but there's nothing I can do about it because I don't even have a way to field the GP payment, and odds are he or she would just recommend me to exorbitantly-priced diagnostics. I've had an impacted wisdom tooth for two years, but I just live with the infrequent bouts of crippling pain from that. My eyeglasses prescription is out of date, and causing more and more damage to my eyes, but I can't afford to have it replaced.
I was diagnosed hypotensive/anemic the last time I was in a doctor's office, but I've never been able to do a follow-up or obtain nutritional advice outside of pamphlets so I could still be living an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, who knows
well, the doctors probably do but heck if they're talking
Let me tell yall what its like
Being male, middle class and white
Its a bitch, if you dont believe
Listen up to my new cd
I want a PS3!
I'm just trying gauge if the bitterness is towards the idea that America's shitty, or towards the basic attitude of wanting "more perfect."
I mean, there's a different between smacking someone who thinks they're so ruined by living in America, and thinking someone is just whiny and spoiled for wanting to make it better, or feeling that it could/should be.
I think it'd be interesting if America stopped helping the rest of the world for just one year.
Then everyone could shut the fuck up and accept their role. :P
Speaking of, man, how much could America help its own people, or other people that need it, if only the government would stop giving billions of dollars every year to Israel, who really doesn't need it?
I mean, that'd provide a whole lot of health care.
I wasn't arguing the American health system can't provide extremely good technical care, what I was arguing was that it only does so if you're wealthy to begin with and that is a health system I don't really care for. Furthermore, the idea that the R&D of this system is somehow a result of screwing the lower class doesn't fly - world class R&D is generated by a lot of countries with a myriad of care giving systems - the fact the US is simply a wealthy nation overall is a better metric.
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Iceland
Higher life expentancy, lower rates for stuff like infant mortality then the U.S.
Sure, United States has the best doctors in the big stuff, but when it comes to actually taking care of the entire population...it's not.
For fucks sake, just because someone isn't at the absolute bottom of the scale in terms of the possible hardships in life, it doesn't mean they are privileged. Used objectively, the standard definition of that term means a top class of people who have more of [whatever] than everyone else. Used comparatively, sure - but that isn't what you are doing.
If you want to say: he is privileged compared to little Johnny in Afghanistan, sure.
If you want to say: being white is a privileged position in America compared to being black, I can at least understand your position.
But do not point at anyone in the world who doesn't fit your idea of what passes for privilege, and shout at them. Because for one, I guarantee that every single person in western countries is privileged by a global perspective, but there are still a shitload of them who are clearly not privileged. Or perhaps it isn't even that - perhaps you think that posessing any of those accidental traits makes you privileged?
Hey, little Johnny ISN'T GAY! He's priviledged!
Hey, there are some black people who aren't women! PRIVILEGED FUCKERS!
If I were to be as mental about it as you clearly want to be, I could argue that black, female, transgender people were privileged too, as by some bizarre legal definition of the word, it also means people with a special set of circumstances to whom the rules don't apply. Pretty sure I could make that argument for all sorts of programs like affirmative action and such.
But I don't, because I'm not trying to be a self-righteous prick.
Next time some homeless bloke on the street asks me for money, I'll be sure to tell him: "But you're so privileged! You live in a major metropolitan city, you have a set of warm clothes, you are white, male, probably had some education at some point in your life, and your hat has almost £3 in change! Why that's several weeks wages to an African farmer! Be grateful you privileged bastard!"
Privilege, like poverty, is a relative term, you utter morons. Trying to compare it on a global scale is pointless, ridiculous and isn't helping anyone. Berating someone you don't know on the internet for being white, male, educated, and having no stated disabilities as "privileged" just shows an extraordinarily simplistic view of how social and economic systems work. Summing up all the potential disadvantages in the world, giving a tick against the name of anyone who doesn't have one, and assuming that many ticks = privilege, is abject stupidity - it gives no weighting to importance, effect, or local effect of those disadvantages, which - by the by - are the entire fucking point. Being black in America might disadvantage you. Being white in Zimbabwe might do the same.
Grow up.
PS I also fail to see what this ad hom attack on one poster's 'privileged' status had to do with opinions about healthcare? Are privileged people's opinions less valid now?
Example time! I'm going to use a broad one to make a point, but there's a lot of much less obvious examples: AIDS in Africa. Me, with my white, educated, middle-class self, might say something like "Those Africans need to stop having so much sex and use condoms, dammit." I might say this because, let's see, I can go one block to the 7-11 and pick up condoms cheaply whenever I want to, I live in a culture that's not saturated with the Catholic church, I am under very little cultural pressure to have lots and lots of babies, I have immediate access to lots of accurate information about STIs and the way they spread, I live in a culture where it is far more acceptable to refuse to have sex with a man if he's not wearing a condom, I am far less likely to be raped, I have the money to spend on condoms, I can leave my relationship without losing all my assets and becoming incredibly vulnerable, etc. If I assume that using a condom or not having sex is as easy for someone in Africa as it is for me, I am looking through an issue through the lens of privilege. In a lot of cases, it means I am judging people for not making decisions as I would make them, while ignoring the factors that lead to their decisions.
Now, how does this relate to healthcare? Healthcare in this country (America) is very much a class issue, and class issues almost always have ties to race, gender, and ability, to mention a few. In America, the quality of care available is very, very high, but the availabilty is extremely circumscribed by wealth. People regularly die from issues that have easy, relatively cheap treatments; one example that comes to mind is a little boy who died a few years ago from complications of leaving a tooth infection untreated. His mother, by the way, had been trying to get him treated, but couldn't find a dentist who would take her insurance. Eventually, he was brought to the hospital with a brain infection, went through two operations and $250,000 in care, and died anyway. Here's a link, if you want sources.
Seen through privilege, the health care issue is one of poor people being too lazy to work and get good, private health insurance. However, we've already had people in this thread who've stood up and said, I work hard, but I still can't get insurance. The point of bringing up privilege is to point out to those that say, "If I can work and get health insurance, anyone can," that many factors keep people from doing exactly that. Health insurance isn't like buying a car, after all; you can work around not having a car, you can save up and plan to get a car at a later point, and there are alternative transportation options. When you get sick or injured, you need treatment as soon as possible, putting off treatment in hopes of saving up money generally means the condition gets worse and the treatment gets more expensive, and the alternative is, often, to die, which in no alternative at all.
I didn't understand whether you meant you were straight or not ('code as straight to strangers') but that doesn't stop it from being an excellent post.
That the principle is ridiculous mostly centers around these two points:
Even if you do share skin colour, gender, or whatever, what means you can talk about other people's experience? It should be blatently obvious that just because I'm white, it doesn't mean I speak for all white people. You can only ever talk about your own experience, or the experiences of others as they tell them to you. Your positions of power & privilege are ridiculous because you say they exist to help you judge what you can say about other people's experience, when the answer is: you can't speak for other people's experience at all.
You might say that because you have no understanding of Africa. Privilege isn't what you are trying to guard against, ignorance and stupidity is.
Ignorance = not knowing conditions in Africa you outline.
Stupidity = assuming that therefore those conditions are similar to yours
So you say privilege, I say ignorance? Just a semantic difference, we're all happy friends, and we can all go home? No, not in this case. Here, the semantics matter.
1. I outline exactly the same opinion and information about Africa, and call someone ignorant for the above statement. They might not like it, but ignorance is just lack of knowledge. It accurately describes the case. More to the point, they can do something about it. If you are ignorant, you can learn about the subject, and stop being ignorant.
2. You call someone privileged for the same. What can they do? It isn't their fault that they are white, male, Christian? But in the context 'privilege' is used (you can't know because you're privileged) it's used as a censure. It pisses people off, but there is nothing they can do about it. You aren't offering a way to fix the situation, or help them understand, you are just saying: you can't understand because of who you are. Well, they will always be white, male, etc. How can they ever try to understand?
That is why it is self-righteous. It is bullshit because you aren't using it to say: hey, don't speak for other people. You are using it to align what those people might say on your side. You don't know this because of privilege, but I do, because I'm on their side! Why don't you tell people who agree with you, because many are presumably still white, middle-class etc, that they are wrong because they are privileged? Why does privilege make your argument true, and Atomic Ross's false? If it doesn't, then how was it relevant to your debate with him? It is a cheap shot, and it is false.
More to the point, it isn't something I've ever heard but from nice, white, middle-class, left-wing, privileged folks. The kind who like to think they understand these things better, because they tout concepts like the importance of 'privilege'. You send me an African woman talking about her experience with AIDS; her I will listen to. You claiming some similarity (any similarity) with her experience does not interest me.
Which is why I am absolutely amazed that you are making this argument of 'privilege' against someone who, as a fucking nurse, has both earned a bit of respect for his opinion on the subject, and sees a shitload more of the practical reality on the ground than you (who I'm guessing on pure probability, are not a medical professional). If anyone is privileged in this argument, it is you; you don't have to deal with ER shite, hospital bureaucracy, and insurance companies. That you are berating him for not understanding a situation he sees day in and out, because he disagrees with your political assessment of that reality, simply makes you an arrogant, blinkered fool.
He wasn't looking at the situation through privilege. He was looking at it through experience. You are looking at it through privilege. Even though I don't agree with him, by the rationale you use above, I'm more inclined to listen to his opinion than yours.
Okay, if you insist... He is privileged compared to tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford health care.
I see your point.
Wonderful. How about instead of picking on the one technical linguistic point, you address the several more substantial points I made, because as I noted above, that statement you have there is still of dubious accuracy, and absolutely no use.
Just in case it escaped you; what you are doing there is answering the start position of an argument. The idea is to read the whole thing, and answer the end position. Tends to be more useful. Also avoids the impression that you are just going for the easy shots because you can't hack the hard questions.
How is pricing for glasses in the US? When I decided to get glasses (I'd been shortsighted for years but lets not go there) I walked into the local shop, asked for an exam and 5 days later I have new glasses for roughly £170 and my property insurance covers new ones should they get damaged. Now I imagine their equipment is probably state-subsidized but when a girl who got her job two weeks ago and doing her third exam can give me perfectly functioning glasses for a low cost I simply cant fathom how it can be an expensive proposition in the US for something as basic as glasses.
One can get glasses in America for less than you paid. I'm not sure why that guy has such trouble.
t (and never would be) his, and therefore must be personal failings. His privileges made it easy to dismiss their experiences, and so he did, rather than consider how their status affected their lives.
And for the record, privilege is something conferred onto you based on these things (being white, male, etc.). No one argued differently.
A lot of people can't afford even a fairly low cost. My new glasses are a Christmas present this year and cost about $200 with the exam and all; if I was being especially thrifty, I could've probably managed about $150, but it's easy to think of situations where someone just doesn''t have an extra $150 to spend. Plus, I'm a pretty basic prescription: nearsighted to different degrees in both eyes, but it's still a lot cheaper for me to get lenses than someone with astigmatism or who needs bifocals.
poshniallo, I'm more-or-less bisexual and in a straight relationship at the moment, so people mostly assume I'm straight. It gives me certain advantages that homosexuals don't have, but those advantages depend on me not doing anything to change the assumption that I'm straight, and if I was in a relationship with a woman, I would code as gay.
Not Sarastro, you and I have argued before, so I'm not sure if you're intending to listen. The best thing a privileged person can do is to educate themselves, be careful about talking about situations that they're not in, and try not to judge before learning more about the situation. Atomic Ross said straight up that "If I can make it, anyone can," and "I'm hardly privileged." I was not attacking his experience in the ER; I was stating that he was ignoring the factors that helped him get to his current position, and discounting the experiences of other people. He sees poverty, but because he grew up in certain circumstances, he can afford to discount the factors that lead to poverty. (Note: growing up middle-class is not a bad thing. Pretending that it didn't give you any advantages is definitely a bad thing.) He's looking at the healthcare issue through his experience, which includes privilege, just like if I was to make the argument that Africans should just use condoms and stop having so much sex, I'd be looking at it through my experience, which also involves privilege. Seeing a position "day in and day out" doesn't make one educated on that situation, just as a prison guard is not necessarily educated about the causes of crime. Denying one's privilege doesn't help your argument, but accepting the privileges you have and making the attempt to educate yourself about the experience of those that do not have your privileges can only help.
Plus, there are some things that, if you haven't lived through them, you can never expect to fully understand, but you should still make the attempt to understand as far as you can. I would never tell Oboro that I understand being TG more than she does, but I can research transgenderism, I can read about the experience of transgendered individuals, and I can work on the best understanding I can get, AND if I'm being short-sighted or ignorant without meaning to and she corrects me, I can apologize and work on understanding her experience better. For a different example, think of what happened when someone on these forums (I don't remember who) made a comment that rape wasn't really a terrible thing and didn't hurt; that person was discounting the experience of those that went through rape, did not make an attempt to educate him- or herself before commenting, and ended up pissing off most of the board (quite rightfully.)
As for start position vs. end position: the end position of Atomic Ross's argument was that universal healthcare wouldn't work because people are noncompliant with health care, so they don't deserve to have said health care, and that making people work for their health care ensured that it would be used strictly by the deserving. First, the idea of deserving needs examination; the factors in people not complying with doctor's instructions are generally based of class (as related to addiction, nutrition, work, housing, and access to medicine and follow-up appointments) and, as such, are not generally a matter of people making a free choice not to do things that would help them stay healthy. Restricting healthcare only to the compliant only works if people can make a free, informed choice about whether or not to comply. Second, many people have spoken up in these forums offering their personal examples that people can work hard, do everything "right," and still not have access to healthcare.
France is usually credited with having the best health care system in the world when it comes to quality, cost, etc. and it's a socialized system.
Christ, isn't that like AU$350? I got mine for about $120, $55 out of pocket because I've got private cover. They're not designer or whatever, but they do the job and they've got that fancy coating stuff and all.
I see nothing in there that addresses precisely what said in the post before, and I see quite a lot which parrots things I've already said. To recap since you missed it:
You say privilege, I say ignorance. Like I pointed out above, we aren't disagreeing on the basic principle of assuming the experience of others. But my version has an implicit way to fix the problem (learn stuffs), yours does not (one cannot change one's background). I'm disagreeing with your method of shouting 'privilege'. You have yet to show me why describing this as 'privilege' is any more accurate or helpful than describing it as ignorance. Please do so if you can.
I am also disagreeing with the way that it is used in arguments, for example, that you don't accuse anyone who agrees with you that their opinion is invalid because it is privileged. Explain that please.
(In response to your point that time as an ER nurse =! universal knowledge on healthcare; of course this is true. But surely knowledge gained from time as an ER nurse > your knowledge as a non-professional / expert in the field?)
...and this is where you just start misrepresenting stuff. Quotes or it didn't happen, so I'll give you some quotes:
Yes, [1] is fair.
[2] is blatently contrary what he actually said.
Not quite "they don't deserve to have said health care"
That is a statement on the reality of how things are, not a statement of intent, how they should be.
[3] is also a serious misrepresentation:
He specifically separates this from the rest of what he says from experience, and notes that it is simply his opinion. That isn't the absolute statement of truth you imply, "making people work for their healthcare ensured it would be used strictly by the deserving"
Whereas you...
...specifically do not note your opinion. No - you do not get to say "as such, are not generally a matter of people making a free choice" and = truth. That is an opinion. It is a matter of serious debate in the outside world, even if it is accepted as a forum truth here. Majority thinking doesn't make it true. You offer precisely zero proof for that assertion, where Atomic Ross has written several pages giving examples and citing his experiences in the field.
...and at that point, after he had posted some rather nuanced, experienced and insightful accounts of the reality of healthcare from his perspective, outlined the stated opinions they had led him to (in fact, how they had changed his previous opinions), and after he had been consistently protesting at being misrepresented and strawmanned by Feral, Cat and others - others who I note, don't seem to have a shred of experience of the US healthcare system, and in some cases, don't even fucking live there but are talking from 'experience - at THAT point, you waltz in and start mouthing off about privilege, saying:
Really? I notice you don't show where he made those complaints? Quotes or it never fucking happened.
You just took the lazy, strawmanned position of those you already agreed with, totally ignored what he had actually said, and happily jumped on the social justice bandwagon. You should be ashamed of your lazy, ignorant argument, and in keeping with the theme, you show signs that you are acting from a 'position of privilege' in this forum, assuming that because your opinions & that of your friends are the majority opinions, they are necessarily true and the other side has nothing worthy to say.
In fact, having re-read over the arguments with Atomic Ross quite thoroughly, most of you should be ashamed at your intellectual dishonesty; Feral, Cat, even Electricity, who is usually pretty thorough. You totally misrepresented a very reasonable, incisive and detailed account of his experiences in ER reality, & attacked it because you didn't like the opinion he has earned from it. The point of debate is to learn from opposing views and test your own against them, not twist and strawman them so you can easily dismiss any challenge to your blinkered worldview. I am absolutely serious, read it again and be ashamed if you have any decency.
So Trowzilla: now I've read and replied to your post. Before you imply that I don't listen, please read and respond to my points, rather than giving me a third definition of what you mean by 'privilege'. I get it. So here's a challenge - try including some substance in your arguments instead of repetition and hawking your pet beliefs.
Quite a lot of AR's posts were balanced and sensible, but when pushed he started with the 'non-compliant' and then moved on to implying that poor people didn't deserve health care.
I'd have to quote all of his posts to show you, but there is a clear debate going on: 'Some types of people shouldn't be looked after by the system' 'But you're privileged - how can you know about their lives?' 'I'm not privileged, I'm normal' 'Yes, you are, and you've just told us about how the system helped you'
And for the love of god, can you manage to post without the abusive tone? Actually, I'm not even going to go with a rhetorical question - can you, Not Sarastro? Can you post without being aggressive?
He did no such thing. As I quoted above, he stated that nobody deserves health-care as a fact: this is true, health-care is not a right in the US, is it? That he agrees with that state of affairs is a perfectly valid opinion, and not nearly the "olol its poor people's own fault" statement that some here would like it to have been. Argue with his opinion on the facts if you like, but don't say "it isn't true because you're privileged". That is ad hom, and wrong.
The disjunct between statements 1 and 2 there are the problem. Paraphrasing AR: "Some types of people shouldn't be looked after by the system" yes, but in full "...this is my opinion, because in my experience of working ER's, this, that and the other are the practical reality of how that system works & how those people use it".
Statement 2 (Trowzilla and others) comes in and refuses to address the second part, and just accuses him of being privileged and not understanding the situation. It totally ignores his stated reasoning and evidence, and simply attacks him on the basis of their subjective social justice opinions. That is why it is fallacious argument and intellectually dishonest.
Is this post aggressive towards you? Disagreement is conflict, but there isn't much I can do about that. I'm consciously aggressive in response to aggression, or where I feel people are deserving of some scorn for their action/argument (this case). There are plenty of posters on these forums, including a lot of mods, who post aggressive opinions without nearly the same attempt to actually back it up with reason & argument, so I'm not entirely sure why you are singling me out: as far as I'm concerned, weak and fallacious argument is a greater sin in debate than an aggressive tone.
Or consider that this might just be the difference between you growing up with one model of academic & public debate, and myself growing up with another? Check out the Houses of Parliament sometime, it's a bear pit. Come and see some of the debates at my university in the pub after lectures, they get down and dirty, but nobody cries about aggression because everyone recognises that it remains within the debate; it's not personal, and nobody's opinions are sacrosanct and safe from attack. I believe that is in the rules here somewhere.
TLDR: Different strokes.
PS I just noticed your sig. Ironic? Otherwise, why does someone saying I hate therefore I am have a problem with aggressive arguments?
the U.S. sorely needs a healthcare system that places more emphasis on preventative care and simple, routine health maintenance rather than expensive and ongoing treatments for chronic illnesses that could easily be preventable. this is one of the worst failings of the "free market"; it encourages high-priced and ongoing treatments instead of low cost, efficient care.
at the same time, i don't want the U.S. Government solely in charge of health insurance. there are already incredible amounts of difficulty managing programs like Medicare, including ongoing, unchecked fraud ranging into the millions. i also want to make sure that doctors, nurses, and other health providers are supported and encouraged in giving their patients the best care for their needs, not the kind of care strictly limited by Government rules OR HMOs. a hybrid system really seems to be up my alley for all of these reasons.
the U.S. also needs to REALLY focus on reducing environmental pollutants, especially carcinogens, as well as promote healthier lifestyles and diets. these are incredibly detrimental to health, and yet they somehow escape the health care radar.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Which pollutants are you talking about? As far as I know (working as an environmental scientist), there are regulations at the Federal and/or State outlining emission specification limits for all carcinogens and many non-carcinogens.
The point that all these posters have been making is that Ross' comments are distorted by the lens of his privilege. And because of that, the accuracy of said statements is...questionable. The fact that he said "I don't think poverty is a disability" pretty much shows that he doesn't understand the problems of poverty and how it's a massive trap that can be very difficult to escape. Now, why doesn't he understand the issue of poverty? Two reasons, interconnected - he's never been truly poor, and because of that, he's never bothered to actually understand the plight of the poor. Instead, he spouts bullshit bromides about how they "need to make better decisions."
You're trying to say that we're not giving solutions - but that's not the case at all. We give solutions - but they're based in the understanding that we have of the problem, whereas your "solutions" are at best ineffective and at worse harmful, because you refuse to grasp WHAT the problem is in the first place. Ross tried to say that those who don't comply with the orders of their doctor shouldn't be given care, but as people have continually pointed out, non-compliance is not just a willful refusal - consider the elderly person forced to cut pills in half to make ends meet because they can't afford to purchase their medicines. Yes, they aren't complying, but the reasons for doing so are not the cut and dried issue that you seem to think it is.
You also seem to keep citing his experience in the ER as trumping the criticisms leveled at him, which again is bullshit. Nobody is discounting his experiences - but from his commentary, it's pretty clear that he's pretty damn ignorant of the underlying issues that motivate what he sees. Because of that, his commentary will never be anything more than a superficial look at the matter, because he refuses to understand the dynamics that lurk beneath. And his refusal to do so is firmly rooted in the privileges that he has thinks to his position in society. He doesn't think he needs to actually understand poverty because he's never been truly poor.
So, as far as I can see it, the only one who's been dishonest in this argument...is you.
Not Sarastro: You wanted my opinion? Here you go: since the emergency room has to treat people and the hospital ends up eating the cost when they can't pay, Americans are already paying for the healthcare of those without insurance through increased fees. Now, the problem with that is, people without insurance can't get preventative care and can't see a regular doctor when they get sick, so they tend to wait until they are very, very sick before they go to the emergency room, which means treating them ends up costing a whole lot more, and they suffer more. Now, to me, a system of spreading healthcare costs out that emphasizes preventative care and minimizes suffering is a much, much better idea than a system of spreading healthcare costs out that doesn't allow preventative care and makes sure that people get as sick as possible before treatment.
Also, socialism is not a dirty word to me. I would rather have a system where people have to wait to get treated for non-urgent conditions than one where people die because they can't get treated for anything. Besides, waiting several months for a test doesn't seem that different; I've had to wait two months to get a biopsy to make sure I didn't have cancer under the supposedly-efficient system, and I had to pay out-of-pocket for it, so I'm not really seeing any advantage. Like education, I feel that universal access to healthcare would have sufficient benefits to everyone to offset the increased taxes, even the people who currently have private insurance. After all, the employer benefits by having a healthy workforce, we all benefit by limiting the spread of disease by keeping people immunized and healthy, etc.
I have -10.50 vision in my right eye and -10.75 in my left. The thinnest, lightest, most advanced lenses that money can buy still are more than a quarter inch thick in my prescription, and without the top-notch anti-glare coatings I cant see shit at night on the road for headlight glare. I can't wear contact lenses because I have (a) terrible astigmatism and (b) a corneal dystrophy that peels off part of my eye (with accompanying excruciating pain) any time I remove contacts after extended wear.
You literally [/i]cannot buy[/i] glasses lenses more expensive than mine, and I literally cannot see well enough to live my life without getting those super-expensive lenses. I've tried before to get cheaper lenses, and after a couple days I have to get them redone.
With decent vision coverage the lenses alone (not including frames, as I've kept the same frames for about seven years) came to $170. It'd be something like $440 without insurance. Oh, and the exam to get them was only $15, that same exam is well over $100 without insurance.
Let me put this into forum-appropriate terms: without insurance, I have to buy the equivalent of a Playstation 3 every year just so I can see well enough to live. With insurance, it's just a DS every year.