Collectively yours.

[alexandraerin]

Alright, I think that if anyone has been reading my work for any time at all, then they are sure to definitely know that pedantry is among a couple things I just won't put up with. But, I'm going to take a moment to address a somewhat pedantic point that I think is worth emphasizing:

The plural of "person" is "persons", not "people".

"People", you see, is a collective noun.

In day-to-day conversation, the distinction's hardly worth noting. But when the foundational legal document of our nation begins "We the People", I think it's important to reflect on what that means. Legal documents are one of the few places you will see "persons" being used on a regular basis, because it has a distinct meaning separate from "people".

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not "We, a bunch of persons". "We the People".

They built an entire episode of Star Trek around this, folks. That's how important it is.

I believe in individual liberties. I believe in privacy and freedom from interference. I believe in the power of the market and the right of persons to individually and collectively utilize it. I believe that when this happens, there will be a general trend towards the betterment of all. The poorest segment of the population of the United States today are generally better off than the poorest segments of the population a century ago.

But I also believe that there are times when our individual strengths aren't enough, there are times when masses of persons following immediate and obvious self-interest conflicts with the common good, and that in those times, We the People must come together.

Imagine if we tried to run a country where each person was responsible for the safety of themselves, their families, their homes, and their possessions. I don't just mean a reasonable level of personal responsibility. I mean that there are no police, no fire departments, no armed forces... if your house is attacked, by robbers or murderers or religious zealots or people who want the land it occupies, you are on your own.

Could you live the life you now live if you were solely responsible for your own protection? Even if you think the answer is yes, do you think the society you live in and the benefits you enjoy from that society could exist under those conditions?

Sure, your answer might be that if the government just disappeared we could all just band together with our neighbors and establish patrols and watch groups and fire brigades and militias... you know, come together for the common defense and promote the general welfare and... hey, this is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?

We the People.

It's easy to get people to agree with the benefits of collectively facing some threats. When your neighbor's home is on fire, yours is in danger. When your neighbor's home is burgled, your home could be next. When your neighbor is threatened by tyranny, what's to stop that tyrant from doing the same to you?

So how about when your neighbor is sick with an infectious disease?

What about when your neighbor is bankrupted by paying for a surgery?

What about when your neighbor can't afford the surgery in the first place?

Sure, you might be thinking, "I can't catch a broken leg.", but if the economy falls, it's taking you with it, and each person taken out of work or rendered destitute is a blow to the economy.

This looks like a job for... We the People.

Using large corporations to insure us against the cost of health care services is a poor substitute for using our collective power as "We the People" to ensure that each of us the persons has access to health care.

I don't know how we can have domestic Tranquility, common defense, or general Welfare when we won't to come together as a People to ensure the health of our population.

Comments

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

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.

...

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

Actually the only point I was trying to make is that there are alternatives to traditional western medicine, and that a little knowledge can go a long way in keeping a person healthy. There are other ways of treating illnesses and injuries than running off to a hospital. I think alot of people set that bar you're talking about higher than they need to simply because they were never taught many of the basic skills needed to treat things themselves and have become dependant on doctors and hospitals for everything.

There is quite alot, healthcare wise, that people can do themselves if they take the time to study and practice. They don't have to rely on doctors and hospitals, which charge exorbitant sums of money, for everything. Western medicine has it's place, but it's not the only game in town. Almost 50% of the pharmaceuticals on the market today are derived from herbs and plant sources. 200 years ago, almost every home had an herb garden that people would use for treating common illnesses and injuries. Those remedies still work, and are accessable to everyone who's willing to water a few plants and do a little research at their local library.

The way I see it, that lowers the accessability bar to it's lowest point in that everyone potentially can do this if they choose to. In some cases, you don't even have to grow the plants yourself. Many of them are growing wild in parks and national forests, or planted as ornamentals on city streets (although plants growing along roadsides are not my favorite since they tend absorb car exhaust).

I agree that as a society the barriers to a fruitful and enjoyable life should be kept to a minimum. But I think that the responsebility for that rests with "We The People" doing everything we can, not with the Government. If we are constantly waiting someone else to improve out lives for us, it will never happen. We must make the choice to work for something better and then take action. My opinion for that in the realm of healthcare is that that begins with learning how to treat yourself for alot of the minor ailments and injuries, and only relying on a physician for a major problem that is beyond one's means to deal with. But each person has to decide where that dividing line is for themselves. If they find that they are going to a clinic or doctor for things that their friends are treating themselves, then maybe it's time they learned what their friends know.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

No, you're making the point I said you were making, and the sad and fucked-up thing is that you don't need to. Less reliance on doctors is not an elemental opposite of everybody having access to doctors. You could advocate for both. I do. I don't go to the doctor very often and didn't when I had very good healthcare. I avoid what I consider to be frivolous medical attention and over medication as a matter of course.

But I also have a genetic condition that will probably result in my brain or other organs failing at a younger age than yours, no matter what I do. "Western" or "Eastern" or "Northern" or "Southern" or "Upper" or "Outer" medicine be fucked, my body will fall apart on its own schedule. At that point my continued survival and quality of life is going to vary based on my access to medicine. The point that you're making is that I ought to be fucked relative to you, and you can please choke to death and die in the street because nobody looking at you can figure out how they benefit from giving you the Heimlich maneuver when you're too lazy to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.