http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/07/social_welfare_is_a_red_herrin.html

I read this blog on occasion and while I don't always agree, he has some interesting points. He typically remains relatively neutral on political issues --or just doesn't comment at all. His main subject material, as you might guess, is the psychiatric community and practices.

Boone created a thread a few weeks ago about equal burden and equal percentage and the standard arguments on either side that we are all familiar with were used.

Then nutsmackr posted this yesterday in the "LA banning fast food restaurants" thread:

Quote :

"How long does it have to be before people wake and realize that claiming personal responsibility doesn't make it happen. Innercity plight - personal responsiblity poor schools - personal responsiblity obesity - personal responsiblity healthcare - personal responsibility as long as we continue to burry our heads in the personal responsiblity sand we'll be continually facing these problems into the future"

In part, the blog post says:

Quote :

"That's why the social welfare angle is a red herring. It's not that they want better services for the underprivileged and hurting the rich is the byproduct; it's the opposite, hurting the rich is the emotional, primary motivator, and the rest is an intellectual posture that rationalizes this resentment. This is why it's dangerous. That's why you can't side with them even if you agree with their policies. Intention matters."

I thought both quotes do a good job of digging a little deeper from each side than the standard conservative/liberal fare and somewhere in there is an actual solution to some of the social solutions we face.

I'd be interested in seeing what some of you thought could be done without hiding behind making the poor suffer because of "personal responsibility" or the rich pay because they owe society.

7/31/2008 9:31:22 AM

Reality is imperfect and will remain imperfect. That said, of the four listed, none of them can be solved by removing personal responsiblity. Hell, all of them were caused by removing personal responsiblity.

For the past 400 years the rich have worried and postured over innercity plight. Their objection is with how the poor choose the live; but you cannot fix it. You give the poor free housing, it will suddenly fill up with poor people. It is not that the poor choose to be poor, but many of us choose to spend our money on other things than pretty housing. As such, this is not a problem that needs fixing, any more than obesity. Living in society involves a lot of learning to live with other people, so get over yourself and mind your own damn business.

As for poor schools, all we need to do here is mimic our European brethren and introduce competition to primary education, and to do so we will need to smash the teachers union. Doing this will require no more sacrifice from the rich; hell, it will probably even save money.

Healthcare is easy too; just nationalize the system, dump everyone into an HMO, and refund the savings to the rich. Again, the solution reduces taxes!

7/31/2008 10:02:40 AM

Quote :

"seeing what some of you thought could be done"

Done about what? I'm not sure what the final question is.


I totally disagree with the guy's assessment of things, though.

I. Wanting to eliminate huge corporate profits in health care is not class warfare or jealousy. I mean, the letter the blogger is commenting on was from Physicians For A National Health Program. Do you really think physicians making well over six figures are jealous over corporate profits? Not likely. They're concerned that these profits are making necessary services less-obtainable for many people.

II. Wanting to stick it to oil companies isn't an issue of class, either. I have many, many good reasons to want to do that.

III. Eh, the guy might have a point here. I think a Harvard social studies professor might be a weeee bit more sensitive to class than, well, anyone else in the entire world. So I'm not sure how effective this point is at demonstrating anything.


I really find these "let me tell you want liberals really think" articles pretty tiresome. Is it that difficult to believe that both sides are acting out of benevolence?

7/31/2008 10:16:49 AM

Quote :

"I really find these "let me tell you want liberals really think" articles pretty tiresome."

I don't think that is what he was saying at all. Maybe I read it in a different context having read his posts in the past, but I don't think his point was that all of those people wanting to eliminate corporate profits were doing so out of jealousy--merely the vocal majority. If their concern wasn't about the profits, why would they even mention it?

I don't think that is much of a reach and no I don't think people in general do anything out of true benevolence.

Quote :

"Done about what? I'm not sure what the final question is."

Done about the increasing class divide and the lack of upward mobility for the poor in many cases.

7/31/2008 10:32:28 AM

To clarify my interpretation: I read the post as him claiming that social welfare was simply a means to an end (stickin' it to the upper class).

Quote :

"If their concern wasn't about the profits, why would they even mention it?"

Mega profits in the health care industry have very different consequences than in other industries. I don't particularly want the health care industry getting stinking rich for the same reason I'd dislike seeing the ACLU or the WWF pocketing billions. It has nothing to do with cash. -If- we can remove those billions in profit in a way that doesn't mess things up, then a necessarily service is cheaper and more accessible.

Quote :

"Done about the increasing class divide and the lack of upward mobility for the poor in many cases."

Yeah, I don't think the guy did a very good job at demonstrating that there's a significant class divide, really. Look at all the poor people voting Republican and supporting tax cuts to the rich. Clearly America isn't too concerned over class issues.

The only time I ever see people get really riled is when we hear about mega-million golden parachutes, and I think that has more to do with the American work ethic than Marxist class struggle.

As far as upward mobility is concerned-- it's plenty mobile (in both directions, oftentimes). It's a shame we don't have more people taking advantage of it, though.



[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 10:52:11 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't think the guy did a very good job at demonstrating that there's a significant class divide, really."

He didn't because I don't think that was what he was going for. He was using the social welfare issue as a launch point into his own pet issue being psychiatry and how they (as an industry) are bent on treating symptoms rather than coming up with actual solutions.

In a way, that's how I see the typical liberal argument. "Hey let's give the poor housing, food, healthcare and we are doing our duty and making ourselves feel better about it."

On the other side, the typical conservative argument is "It's not our prblem they are there because of their own poor decisions and lack of responsibility. We owe them nothing."

Neither really provide any real solutions--one attacks symptoms and the other simply does nothing.

Quote :

"It's a shame we don't have more people taking advantage of it, though."

In my mind, a real solution would involve figuring out how to get people to take advantage of the mobility that is clearly there.

7/31/2008 11:06:05 AM