Don't feel like you have to answer this, but I'd be curious about your family history and your personal history, regarding availability of things like regular doctor's visits and adequate nutrition and safe places to exercise growing up.
Actually, no, I'm not that curious. You are an anecdote, not a statistic.
But if you're that healthy as an adult, then odds are you had a healthy childhood, which means you had certain advantages that are far from universal.
This isn't to say that you should feel guilty or that families who have those advantages should give them up for being "unfair". Just that you need to be careful in assigning your experience weight in terms of a broader description. As advice goes, "don't get sick" is right up there with "don't be desperately poor"... and in fact, the two things could probably be strongly correlated.
In fairness, you are acknowledging that what works for you wouldn't work for everybody, but with that acknowledgment, questions about relevancy arise. If you're honestly not suggesting that the need for health care is the fault of lazy people who don't take care of themselves, then what's the point of bringing it up?
"Since we're on the subject of health care, I'm really, really healthy."
I myself had more than adequate nutrition growing up (though I did benefit from government subsidies there) and I lived in a house with a big backyard in a safe neighborhood with a top-notch playground and athletic field about three houses away from it.
I also had a mitochondrial disorder that limited the amount of exercise I could get and my ability to benefit from it.
As an adult, I have some health problems that I could probably have prevented or avoided. Then I also have some health problems that are the result of an inherited mutation. And to be perfectly honest, those two facts are likely related... any problem I develop in my organs or muscles or brain is likely being exacerbated by my cellular malfunctions, as well as by my exercise difficulties.
And with all that, I'm still better off than a lot of people, healthwise. My parents could afford to take me to specialists when I was young. That didn't strike me as a particularly lucky thing at the time, mind you.
But anyway, my point is that if "personal responsibility" is going to enter into the healthcare discussion, then what we're really saying is this:
1. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of wealth required to live in our society. 2. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of genetic health required to live in our society. 3. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of luck required to live in our society.
Because "personal responsibility" depends upon personal ability, and your ability to not get sick or hurt depends on those three factors.
An alternate approach to "personal responsibility", of course, would be "from each according to their ability, to each according their need." But that's crazy talk, of course.
The "we believe in setting" is important. There are minimum amounts of resources, genetic health, and luck required to live as a matter of course. Some things are just plain fatal. We'll never be able to change that.
But as a society, we can move the bar. I'm in favor of moving it down as low as we can, as a society. I feel better about living in a society that keeps the barriers to a fruitful and enjoyable--or even tolerable, or sustainable--life as low as possible.
I think it's better for society, too.
I don't have a very flattering opinion of people who think it's a good idea to make the barriers harder to surmount.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-09-03 02:31 pm (UTC)Actually, no, I'm not that curious. You are an anecdote, not a statistic.
But if you're that healthy as an adult, then odds are you had a healthy childhood, which means you had certain advantages that are far from universal.
This isn't to say that you should feel guilty or that families who have those advantages should give them up for being "unfair". Just that you need to be careful in assigning your experience weight in terms of a broader description. As advice goes, "don't get sick" is right up there with "don't be desperately poor"... and in fact, the two things could probably be strongly correlated.
In fairness, you are acknowledging that what works for you wouldn't work for everybody, but with that acknowledgment, questions about relevancy arise. If you're honestly not suggesting that the need for health care is the fault of lazy people who don't take care of themselves, then what's the point of bringing it up?
"Since we're on the subject of health care, I'm really, really healthy."
I myself had more than adequate nutrition growing up (though I did benefit from government subsidies there) and I lived in a house with a big backyard in a safe neighborhood with a top-notch playground and athletic field about three houses away from it.
I also had a mitochondrial disorder that limited the amount of exercise I could get and my ability to benefit from it.
As an adult, I have some health problems that I could probably have prevented or avoided. Then I also have some health problems that are the result of an inherited mutation. And to be perfectly honest, those two facts are likely related... any problem I develop in my organs or muscles or brain is likely being exacerbated by my cellular malfunctions, as well as by my exercise difficulties.
And with all that, I'm still better off than a lot of people, healthwise. My parents could afford to take me to specialists when I was young. That didn't strike me as a particularly lucky thing at the time, mind you.
But anyway, my point is that if "personal responsibility" is going to enter into the healthcare discussion, then what we're really saying is this:
1. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of wealth required to live in our society.
2. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of genetic health required to live in our society.
3. We believe in setting a higher minimum amount of luck required to live in our society.
Because "personal responsibility" depends upon personal ability, and your ability to not get sick or hurt depends on those three factors.
An alternate approach to "personal responsibility", of course, would be "from each according to their ability, to each according their need." But that's crazy talk, of course.
The "we believe in setting" is important. There are minimum amounts of resources, genetic health, and luck required to live as a matter of course. Some things are just plain fatal. We'll never be able to change that.
But as a society, we can move the bar. I'm in favor of moving it down as low as we can, as a society. I feel better about living in a society that keeps the barriers to a fruitful and enjoyable--or even tolerable, or sustainable--life as low as possible.
I think it's better for society, too.
I don't have a very flattering opinion of people who think it's a good idea to make the barriers harder to surmount.
...