In talking with people, I most commonly hear despair or fear at the idea of changing Social Security and Medicare. These fears are a rsult of an inability to imagine life without them. But this is not difficult, and I believe would produce a more just and a more civil society.
Republicans are often called cruel when talking about ending or modifying our 'social safety net'. But I am not cruel, and Republicans as a group are not cruel either. Instead it is our social concept, our social contract, that has become cruel.
Prior to SS,MC,SSI (collectively hereafter FSSP- Federal Social Safety Programs), people did not die in the streets or fail to get medical care. In 1962 the elderly and indigent received excellent care. Similarly, prior to 1933 the elderly and disabled did not rot and starve in the streets. In the case of medical care there were indigent care clinics at all major hospitals. Here residents were trained (they still are) under the supervision of private physicians who gave their time as part of their udnerstood obligations to society and their profession. This is no different than the pro bono work of attorneys today. The elderly and disabled received care as needed through retirement with families or in retirement homes run by churches and social organizations. The quality of care was not worse; we confuse emdical advances in character of care for poor quality care in the past.
What was different was the organization of society. We imagine we are being kind in having these FSSP. No- we are being cold and cruel. We foist off our obligation to others in paying taxes and ;etting 'the government' provide care. The personal connection of people to their neighbors and society is lost in the universal form of valuation in the US- money. Do we really think we have satisfied our MORAL obligations to others in this way? No, we have not, and I think at our hearts we know it. Thus we have pervaisve guilt caused by a failure of human behavior, and attempts to assuage that guilt through more programs and more taxes, which is what created guilt in the first place. Do you think by charging more to the wealthy that their obligation is met, or better yet, that yours is met? Neither of these statements is true.
Further, we imagine we create equal opportunity with affirmative action and social comfort and safety with welfare programs. We do the exact opposite. Affirmative action leads all minority professionals to have their credentials questioned. And Affirmative action says wordlessly to all minorities 'you are not qualified to compete on a level playing field'. That is a devastating, destructive statement. This is the message of welfare also, a message of helplessness, of lack of accountability, of dependency. It says 'you can not possibly be strong enough to lift yourself, or be accountable for your actions. We, the good and successful, the white, the able, must help you, the feckless, the stupid, the black'. That is not a message of empowerment or hope. It helps no one. It just furthers dependency and despondency. And it lets those with ability foist off their obligations to others and to society.
When Republicans talk about Christian values, too often they are pandering to Evangelical conservatives. The underlying message, however, is one of social and personal renewal, of an increase in the bonds of Americans and a decrease in dependency on government. And such a message should properly invoke the values of God as expressed in every religion. That is not a call to any one religion; it is a call to remember what ethical values look like increating society. And they don't look like governmental handouts.
So what would I have?
A full federalized basic health coverage. Not all procedures would be covered or should be, but if you have a social security number, you have basic health care. If you want more than that, buy a wraparound policy, which would not be expensive, and would become part of a nationally competitive marketplace. Taxes would rise about 5%, but workers would see the cost of their health insruance, now paid by their employers, show up in increased wages or increaseed hiring. And no, it would not all end up in the pockets of employers, as employers would have to offer competitive wages for workers.
Social Security returned to its original, limited concept. No more cost of living and enorous, inflated payouts. You get what you paid in plus interest. A required, basic federallly mandated savings system so that no one need starve. But no one was ever meant to live off SS or SSI.
A return to our individual and community responsibilities. Communities and individuals would find themselves with more disposable money but also a responsibility for their own retirement and their own communities. Churches and community organizations would again be important, and we would suddently be acutely aware of health care choices and aging. And we could not foist off our own care and that of others to 'the government'. Suddenly it's our responsibilty. People make very different chocies when empowered, and when responsible.
Advice, not money, for impoverished neighborhoods. Instead of paying money in federal entitlements, provide federal tax incentives to get corporations and individuals involved in providing a broader horizon of life to the poor. Professionals who visit schools would get credit, as would banks who set up laon aprtnerships with neighborhoods to restore and occupy buildings. it doesn't take socialist central planning to rebuild. It takes concerned and involved citizens.
The failures of our nation are the failures of its citizens, and neither the fault or the responsibility of gevernment. Proposing governmental programs and extensions of benefits is no solution. It is a renewal of ourselves, of our souls and minds, that is wanting.
Only one party offers that. The other offers only pandering programs to continue governmental enslavement.
Ted
Republicans are often called cruel when talking about ending or modifying our 'social safety net'. But I am not cruel, and Republicans as a group are not cruel either. Instead it is our social concept, our social contract, that has become cruel.
Prior to SS,MC,SSI (collectively hereafter FSSP- Federal Social Safety Programs), people did not die in the streets or fail to get medical care. In 1962 the elderly and indigent received excellent care. Similarly, prior to 1933 the elderly and disabled did not rot and starve in the streets. In the case of medical care there were indigent care clinics at all major hospitals. Here residents were trained (they still are) under the supervision of private physicians who gave their time as part of their udnerstood obligations to society and their profession. This is no different than the pro bono work of attorneys today. The elderly and disabled received care as needed through retirement with families or in retirement homes run by churches and social organizations. The quality of care was not worse; we confuse emdical advances in character of care for poor quality care in the past.
What was different was the organization of society. We imagine we are being kind in having these FSSP. No- we are being cold and cruel. We foist off our obligation to others in paying taxes and ;etting 'the government' provide care. The personal connection of people to their neighbors and society is lost in the universal form of valuation in the US- money. Do we really think we have satisfied our MORAL obligations to others in this way? No, we have not, and I think at our hearts we know it. Thus we have pervaisve guilt caused by a failure of human behavior, and attempts to assuage that guilt through more programs and more taxes, which is what created guilt in the first place. Do you think by charging more to the wealthy that their obligation is met, or better yet, that yours is met? Neither of these statements is true.
Further, we imagine we create equal opportunity with affirmative action and social comfort and safety with welfare programs. We do the exact opposite. Affirmative action leads all minority professionals to have their credentials questioned. And Affirmative action says wordlessly to all minorities 'you are not qualified to compete on a level playing field'. That is a devastating, destructive statement. This is the message of welfare also, a message of helplessness, of lack of accountability, of dependency. It says 'you can not possibly be strong enough to lift yourself, or be accountable for your actions. We, the good and successful, the white, the able, must help you, the feckless, the stupid, the black'. That is not a message of empowerment or hope. It helps no one. It just furthers dependency and despondency. And it lets those with ability foist off their obligations to others and to society.
When Republicans talk about Christian values, too often they are pandering to Evangelical conservatives. The underlying message, however, is one of social and personal renewal, of an increase in the bonds of Americans and a decrease in dependency on government. And such a message should properly invoke the values of God as expressed in every religion. That is not a call to any one religion; it is a call to remember what ethical values look like increating society. And they don't look like governmental handouts.
So what would I have?
A full federalized basic health coverage. Not all procedures would be covered or should be, but if you have a social security number, you have basic health care. If you want more than that, buy a wraparound policy, which would not be expensive, and would become part of a nationally competitive marketplace. Taxes would rise about 5%, but workers would see the cost of their health insruance, now paid by their employers, show up in increased wages or increaseed hiring. And no, it would not all end up in the pockets of employers, as employers would have to offer competitive wages for workers.
Social Security returned to its original, limited concept. No more cost of living and enorous, inflated payouts. You get what you paid in plus interest. A required, basic federallly mandated savings system so that no one need starve. But no one was ever meant to live off SS or SSI.
A return to our individual and community responsibilities. Communities and individuals would find themselves with more disposable money but also a responsibility for their own retirement and their own communities. Churches and community organizations would again be important, and we would suddently be acutely aware of health care choices and aging. And we could not foist off our own care and that of others to 'the government'. Suddenly it's our responsibilty. People make very different chocies when empowered, and when responsible.
Advice, not money, for impoverished neighborhoods. Instead of paying money in federal entitlements, provide federal tax incentives to get corporations and individuals involved in providing a broader horizon of life to the poor. Professionals who visit schools would get credit, as would banks who set up laon aprtnerships with neighborhoods to restore and occupy buildings. it doesn't take socialist central planning to rebuild. It takes concerned and involved citizens.
The failures of our nation are the failures of its citizens, and neither the fault or the responsibility of gevernment. Proposing governmental programs and extensions of benefits is no solution. It is a renewal of ourselves, of our souls and minds, that is wanting.
Only one party offers that. The other offers only pandering programs to continue governmental enslavement.
Ted
Dear PORSH, so glad to see you are posting again! I had checked a few times shortly after your job change and didn't see anything, so assumed you were still taking a break and adjusting to your new situation. I now have some reading to catch up on. As for your frustrations over civility, the lack of it is an immense frustration. I finally posted an amusing (though serious) card on my facebook page that expressed the desire for a "Hide political posts so I'll still like my friends when the election is over" button. Some people take liberties on posts that they would never take if the person were in front of them, and some also feel free to advance emotionally charged but ridiculous arguments. It brings out the worst in some people.
ReplyDelete