"Health Care Crisis" vs. "Culture Crisis"

At least three seperate people on my Facebook feed have shared this link. I've copied the text below, followed by my response, because after seeing it so many times, I decided that my common practice of holding my tongue when I see something I disagree with on Facebook won't work this time around.

Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.


While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD
If you agree...pass it on.



Why assume that the tattoos and gold tooth are recent acquisitions? Perhaps they were acquired during a period of employment, or at least better financial circumstances.

We don't know how the cell phone was acquired or paid for. Maybe it's prepaid, or paid for by a family member. And in this day and age, a cell phone is frequently considered one of life's necessities. Maybe the sneakers were a gift, or purchased on clearance.

Cigarette smoking is frequently an addiction. An expensive one, yes, but the tools to quit smoking aren't exactly cheap either. Not everyone can go cold-turkey without significant physical and emotional symptoms.

Fast food, while it might seem expensive to us, is frequently cheaper than purchasing healthy food to cook at home. This is one of the reasons that people in poverty are hardest hit by the obesity epidemic- fattening, unhealthy food is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables, if any fresh produce is to be found at the grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods at all.

I'm not saying that the woman in this story is a shining example of personal responsibility, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who have been productive members of society and still lacked health insurance. I'm generally considered intelligent and well-educated by most of the standards our culture uses, and I get confused when trying to understand insurance. It is easy to buy a six-pack of beer. Let us not forget that any number of private insurance companies will turn down a person for a pre-existing condition, of which this woman may have several.

Lastly, while I certainly advocate responsibility and taking austerity measures when necessary, why do so many letters like this assume that the poor don't deserve anything nice? Why do we expect people to know how to take financial responsibility when we live in a culture of conspicuous consumption and don't teach young people how to manage money?

Where's the letter of outrage about the man who makes $100,000/year, drinks to excess, smokes, and eats red meat, and who drives up insurance premiums for everyone when he needs quadruple bypass surgery? Do only the wealthy deserve health care? Are only the rich entitled to pleasure?

I believe that government exists to provide essential services to its citizens, and to provide a safety net. I am grateful these programs exist, so that if I ever need them, they'll be there. I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to social programs. That's what they're for, and it saves me the trouble of having to write a seperate check to charity to cover these services.

There are many things wrong with our culture, yes. One is the failure of many people to take personal responsibility. But another is a pervasive "me first, screw the other guy" attitude. No man is an island, and a fall from grace might be just around the corner for any of us. Treating others with the compassion you would want if the situation were reversed is the first step in creating a better world.

Seriously?

So, earlier this evening, a friend of mine sent me a link to this video:


Which piqued my curiousity, so I watched the original:


Which, unsurprisingly, made me angry. I wanted to do an eloquent, point-by-point rebuttal of their points, but I couldn't find the script online and I didn't think that watching the video enough times to transcribe it properly would be good for my blood pressure.

Fortunately, Keith Olbermann said basically what I want to say:



How does my right to marry whomever I choose hurt anyone? How does the expansion of rights take away anyone's rights? My faith teaches that all love should be honored and celebrated, so why does your faith get to be the one that defines marriage for everyone? How does saying that civil marriage has to be defined by civil law mean that a religious institution has to change the religious definition of marriage? There's already a difference! Gay couples get married in churches all the time. Plenty of clergy won't perform marriages that are otherwise legal under civil law, because the religious law they follow doesn't allow said marriage. The National Organization for Marriage says that it takes away their right to define marriage a certain way, and means that people are allowed to call them bigots. Guess what? I'm already allowed to call you a bigot, because a)the First Amendment says I am, and b) you are. Also, you can define marriage any darn way you want. You can define any word any darn way you want, though I wouldn't advise it, as it tends to make communication difficult. My marriage doesn't need your recognition to be valid, it only needs the government to recognize it. There are plenty of marriages I've seen and not approved of, but it's not my business.
You can teach your children whatever you want. Teach them that your god only wants people to have sex with their spouse (of the opposite sex!) in the dark in the missionary position with their eyes closed for the purposes of reproduction and will smite them down if they do it any other way. You're allowed. You're an idiot, but you're allowed. Teach them that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the god you believe in. Because that's not led to any suicides or anything. You don't have to teach your children to be tolerant and accepting if you don't want to. That's what I plan on teaching my kids, but hey, you know, whatever. I'll teach my kids that all men and women are brother and sisters and that "a wrong done to one man is a wrong done to all men", you teach your kids that it's OK to tell people they're going to hell because of who they love. It's a free country, after all. But as Sondheim says, "be careful what you say, children will listen." Polls already show that as the next generation comes of age, support for same-sex marriage is growing, as is support for equality in general, so I'm actually not too worried.

Funny how once I start writing, I get on a roll. But oh, for a pen of fire, to match my muse.

"Destruction of Indigenous Cultures Day"

Columbus sailed for India found Salvador instead
he shook hands with some Indians and soon they all were dead
they got TB and typhoid and athletes foot, diphtheria and the flu
'Scuse me, great nations comin' through

-"Great Nations of Europe" by Randy Newman

One of my Anthropologist friends and I got into a conversation today about how Columbus Day shouldn't actually be a holiday. And certainly not in the "yay for the Nina the Pinta and the Santa Maria" kind of way. I respect the courage it took to look for an all-water route to India from Europe, to sail into those unknown waters. But when we teach our children about it, I think it's also important to teach them about the consequences. I can't honestly completely begrudge European settlement of the Americas, because if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't be here, but that doesn't mean it didn't cause a lot of pain and suffering.
Also, the notion of granting Columbus credit for "discovering" anything is kind of ridiculous. And, no, not because the Vikings got to Canada before he made it to the Caribbean. But because the native people of the Americas knew that their land existed. Things aren't hidden just because a European has never seen them, Columbus didn't discover American anymore than Dr. Livingstone discovered Victoria Falls.
Of course, most people are just happy to have a three-day weekend...

VP Debates

I started watching, then stopped, then started again.

Dear Senator Biden:
I was so happy when you said that you supported rights for same-sex couples. And then you had to go and say you didn't support gay marriage, and my smile turned upside down.

Also, "madrassa" is the Arabic word for "school". So when you say that we should help build schools instead of madrassas, my head kinda hurts. I get that "madrassa" has a specific connotation in English, but still.

xoxo
Evelyn, who's gonna vote for you anyway

Dear Governor Palin:
Try not to look so scared. And "Change" is the Obama slogan. Also, if I'd made a drinking game featuring "maverick" "hockey mom" and anything about families, I'd be drunk by now.

Peace and Love,
Evelyn, who would only vote for you if your politics resembled Tina Fey's as much as your face did

Dear Senator McCain

Not all women are the same. The possession of a XX chromosome and a uterus does not mean that we all possess a hive mind. Disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters will not leap over to the Republican party because a woman is on the ticket. Especially when that women is anti-choice and has minimal experience.

Just a piece of advice,
Me

Also.
Today I saw some kids who looked to be college freshmen wearing McCain '08 shirts. Someone please explain to me how anyone under the age of 45 thinks McCain is a good candidate (or any Republican, for that matter). Explain why anyone who isn't a rich old white guy, or a white guy who hopes to be rich and old someday, votes for that party. Because I don't get it. I seriously wanted to stop and talk to these kids, and ask them why on earth they thought that McCain had their best interest at heart, especially the girls.