Taste is a relative thing. How I feel about a particular food could be wholly different from how you feel. I hate black olives, for instance. And raw oysters. Does that invalidate my other tastes? Because I don't like raw oysters, is my taste for macaroni & cheese or sushi? Of course not. And we can safely say that taste varies widely around the world. I heard a story about a fruit named durian that tastes fine but has the odor of soiled diapers. Or hell, watch any episode of Taboo about food and you'll find something disgusting - to you. So I think we can safely say that there is no "standard" of what is good or bad food.
So there is no standard for taste. It depends on the person. Does that lack of defining standard then extend to other tastes? Music? Art? Literature? If people can have hugely varied tastes about food and it is considered acceptable, then shouldn't that hold true for other aesthetics?
Yet we have music critics, art critics, book critics - all sorts of critics, including food critics. These are people who make their living pointing out flaws in other people's taste. Ostensibly they're doing it to provide the wider public with a preview of what's worth doing and what's not. Yet they're still operating off of some standard of what's good and what's not. A critic cannot be purely objective by virtue of he or she being a person.
So then what to make of people who judge and criticize others' tastes? Is it appropriate to tell someone that they have poor taste? From what position could they possibly be in granting them the right to abuse another's taste? And even then, what would accomplish? Why bother telling someone that what they like isn't cool, or appropriate, or good?
We should all be comfortable enjoying our own particular tastes. Music, books, food, all that. But there is some advantage in listening and following to these social cues. It helps people get along and fit in to groups! By agreeing to like the same things, or just not speaking judgments aloud, we can be more comfortable in our tastes. Certain people may join certain groups because of common tastes, or by a desire to be in accepted by that group. By establishing a hierarchy of acceptable taste, people can define where they stand among their peers. The flip side is simply ignoring any criticisms and enjoying what you do regardless, but this could be isolating.
Hmm... I'm sorting of losing the thread here. I guess the idea here is while standards are used in different areas, they don't need to be. Now I sound like a happy hippie, all you need is love kinda thing. Whatever. I like Spike Lee movies and Huey Lewis and the News. Booyah!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I'm for National Health Care
Absolutely. Let me start by saying that I am no way an expert on nationalizing health care. I don't know what HMO means or how single-payer coverage differs from... whatever is something that is different from that would be. BUT I do know:
-In 2008, Americans spent 16% of their GDP on health care - way more than anyone else in the industrialized world. This averages about to $7900 per person, per year. (National Coalition for Health Care)
-That 16% of GDP spent on health care is way, WAY beyond what other industrial nations spend. The average in 2004 was 8.4%. (Montreal Economic Institute, page 3)
-Our current health insurance programs minimize the effectiveness of our dollar spending, which is one reason why we must spend so much more money on heath care to achieve similar, and often less satisfactory, results as other nations. (Harvard Business Blog)
-People love their national health care services. Although European models are used to vilify national health care, you get a much different version of event when you ask the Europeans themselves. (Jay Bookman, WeLoveTheNHS twitter feed)
-IN 2009, medical debt in America is responsible for almost 60% of all bankruptcy filings - a strong indication that our current system is not doing anyone any favors. (American Journal of Medicine via CBS)
And I could keep going, throwing out statistics and studies demonstrating the failure of our current health care system and demonstrating the relative effectiveness of a nationalized health plan. And to be fair, I'm sure opponents can come up with enough counterarguments to support their side (although I can't imagine how they could hold any water).
Most Americans have their insurance through their employer and it is provided at a minimal cost because the insurance provider has guaranteed access to lots of patients (the employees). It's a cost of scale thing. The second reason for low cost employer health care is that health care benefits are tax-free, giving employers an incentive to provide health insurance.
There are two downsides to this system: one, as I outlined above, it doesn't appear to be all that effective. It is still run by large insurance companies looking to turn a profit. Second, if you don't have a job, you're fucked. With the national joblessness rate hovering around 10%, that equates to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Add to that the number that DON'T receive health care benefits from their job (wage workers, etc.) and you have the approximate 47 million uninsured Americans you hear about on TV. That in turn means a lot of people are royally fucked when something major goes wrong - hence the 60% of bankruptcies due to health costs.
To the best of my knowledge, the main counterargument for national health care is that the government determines what health care is available. Which drugs can be prescribed, what procedures can be given and to whom, etc. This means that if you're 90-year-old grandfather needs dialysis, the national health care isn't going to pay for it - it's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of dollars to extend that person's life. And when phrased that way, no politician is going to support national health care. Second, you would see a drop in employers offering health insurance as the tax-free status of those benefits would be removed to help pay for national health care. It is important to remember however that at all times private insurance may be held.
Regardless, I would like to see national health care offer basic preventative care (check ups, dental, vision, infant care) and catastrophic coverage (emergency medicine). Minor to intermediate health concerns could be subsidized but not free. All the money we are wasting on health care should be going into the economy, into our personal lives, and giving us the freedom to spend our money that right-wingers want us to have.
Finally, it is vital that Americans take on some damn responsibility. When it comes down to it, you are most responsible for your health. Eat better & exercise: that's 95% of the health care problem right there. We must be accountable for health just as we must be accountable for our credit card debts, wars, and overspending.
-In 2008, Americans spent 16% of their GDP on health care - way more than anyone else in the industrialized world. This averages about to $7900 per person, per year. (National Coalition for Health Care)
-That 16% of GDP spent on health care is way, WAY beyond what other industrial nations spend. The average in 2004 was 8.4%. (Montreal Economic Institute, page 3)
-Our current health insurance programs minimize the effectiveness of our dollar spending, which is one reason why we must spend so much more money on heath care to achieve similar, and often less satisfactory, results as other nations. (Harvard Business Blog)
-People love their national health care services. Although European models are used to vilify national health care, you get a much different version of event when you ask the Europeans themselves. (Jay Bookman, WeLoveTheNHS twitter feed)
-IN 2009, medical debt in America is responsible for almost 60% of all bankruptcy filings - a strong indication that our current system is not doing anyone any favors. (American Journal of Medicine via CBS)
And I could keep going, throwing out statistics and studies demonstrating the failure of our current health care system and demonstrating the relative effectiveness of a nationalized health plan. And to be fair, I'm sure opponents can come up with enough counterarguments to support their side (although I can't imagine how they could hold any water).
Most Americans have their insurance through their employer and it is provided at a minimal cost because the insurance provider has guaranteed access to lots of patients (the employees). It's a cost of scale thing. The second reason for low cost employer health care is that health care benefits are tax-free, giving employers an incentive to provide health insurance.
There are two downsides to this system: one, as I outlined above, it doesn't appear to be all that effective. It is still run by large insurance companies looking to turn a profit. Second, if you don't have a job, you're fucked. With the national joblessness rate hovering around 10%, that equates to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Add to that the number that DON'T receive health care benefits from their job (wage workers, etc.) and you have the approximate 47 million uninsured Americans you hear about on TV. That in turn means a lot of people are royally fucked when something major goes wrong - hence the 60% of bankruptcies due to health costs.
To the best of my knowledge, the main counterargument for national health care is that the government determines what health care is available. Which drugs can be prescribed, what procedures can be given and to whom, etc. This means that if you're 90-year-old grandfather needs dialysis, the national health care isn't going to pay for it - it's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of dollars to extend that person's life. And when phrased that way, no politician is going to support national health care. Second, you would see a drop in employers offering health insurance as the tax-free status of those benefits would be removed to help pay for national health care. It is important to remember however that at all times private insurance may be held.
Regardless, I would like to see national health care offer basic preventative care (check ups, dental, vision, infant care) and catastrophic coverage (emergency medicine). Minor to intermediate health concerns could be subsidized but not free. All the money we are wasting on health care should be going into the economy, into our personal lives, and giving us the freedom to spend our money that right-wingers want us to have.
Finally, it is vital that Americans take on some damn responsibility. When it comes down to it, you are most responsible for your health. Eat better & exercise: that's 95% of the health care problem right there. We must be accountable for health just as we must be accountable for our credit card debts, wars, and overspending.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Forward Thinking
While slogging through endless hours of meandering lectures and thirty-page academic articles during my time at UC Riverside, I gleaned proportionally few worthwhile ideas relative to the time spent extracting them. One of those important ideas however is becoming louder in the public discourse - the real goal of education in America.
For the past sixty years, education in America created experts. A student does well in math or science and attends an engineering school, or shows a proclivity for writing and enrolls in a fine arts institution. From there, the student earns a bachelor and enters the narrow world of their specialized field. Or, they earn a master's or even doctorate, and each additional level of education proportionally narrows their effective working field. Eventually someone may become such an expert that the only option left to them (unless they choose to work "beneath" their level) is further research - thus, the college professor.
The problem now is that the rest of the world caught up with us. Asia, especially India and China, are producing enormous numbers of students with equal or better educations that our own. And its a very easy decision for a business to choose between paying an American worker or an Asian worker with equal credentials - one is required by law to health care, standard-of-living costs, insurance, and proportional salaries, while the other is happy making $500 a month. So, simply being an "expert" in a given field is no longer enough to guarantee success.
The recent push for examining our educational system focuses on something I've felt strongly about since before I became a teacher: cross-discipline education, or holistic teaching. A chemist must now master both their chosen field and be able to communicate effectively, or even better, apply their knowledge across the spectrum of modern living and synthesize a new understanding, create a new idea, for lack of a better word.
Academic subjects are viewed as discrete from one another. Reaching across the divide is essential if we want a versatile, flexible, talented, and better population. By becoming a "jack of all trades", you have a work force that is not only easier to employ but essential to have. Think of it this way: the recent trend in football has been multi-position players that can function as, say, a quarterback, running back, and receiver all in the same game. Obviously this person, who can access skills from a variety of sources, is much more desireable than a single-skill person.
Beyond that, the entire population (both rising through academic training and the current work force) must realize that in the new, faster evolving world, one's education does not stop. You must never stop learning. The stagnation that comes from accepting a station is now dangerous. If you will not improve yourself, add skills to your resume, and become invaluable, than you are simply a one-trick pony with much less value. Continous learning does not mean enrolling in college courses, taking tests and writing essays (although it could!). Instead, expanding your own skill set by learning from others or exploring a seemingly unrelated realm is sufficient. The more you take in, the more valuable you become.
Lastly, I would like to say that it is foolish to think one has "learned enough". You are not a jar that can be filled with knowledge until it tops off. There is no limit to your understanding. Perhaps you'll never become a doctor or author, but you can certainly add some of those abilities to your personal palate. "How do you educate and train people for jobs that don't exist yet?" asks Michael Thurmond, Georgia's labor commissioner. "As long as you know how to learn, [employers] can train you to do a job."
For the past sixty years, education in America created experts. A student does well in math or science and attends an engineering school, or shows a proclivity for writing and enrolls in a fine arts institution. From there, the student earns a bachelor and enters the narrow world of their specialized field. Or, they earn a master's or even doctorate, and each additional level of education proportionally narrows their effective working field. Eventually someone may become such an expert that the only option left to them (unless they choose to work "beneath" their level) is further research - thus, the college professor.
The problem now is that the rest of the world caught up with us. Asia, especially India and China, are producing enormous numbers of students with equal or better educations that our own. And its a very easy decision for a business to choose between paying an American worker or an Asian worker with equal credentials - one is required by law to health care, standard-of-living costs, insurance, and proportional salaries, while the other is happy making $500 a month. So, simply being an "expert" in a given field is no longer enough to guarantee success.
The recent push for examining our educational system focuses on something I've felt strongly about since before I became a teacher: cross-discipline education, or holistic teaching. A chemist must now master both their chosen field and be able to communicate effectively, or even better, apply their knowledge across the spectrum of modern living and synthesize a new understanding, create a new idea, for lack of a better word.
Academic subjects are viewed as discrete from one another. Reaching across the divide is essential if we want a versatile, flexible, talented, and better population. By becoming a "jack of all trades", you have a work force that is not only easier to employ but essential to have. Think of it this way: the recent trend in football has been multi-position players that can function as, say, a quarterback, running back, and receiver all in the same game. Obviously this person, who can access skills from a variety of sources, is much more desireable than a single-skill person.
Beyond that, the entire population (both rising through academic training and the current work force) must realize that in the new, faster evolving world, one's education does not stop. You must never stop learning. The stagnation that comes from accepting a station is now dangerous. If you will not improve yourself, add skills to your resume, and become invaluable, than you are simply a one-trick pony with much less value. Continous learning does not mean enrolling in college courses, taking tests and writing essays (although it could!). Instead, expanding your own skill set by learning from others or exploring a seemingly unrelated realm is sufficient. The more you take in, the more valuable you become.
Lastly, I would like to say that it is foolish to think one has "learned enough". You are not a jar that can be filled with knowledge until it tops off. There is no limit to your understanding. Perhaps you'll never become a doctor or author, but you can certainly add some of those abilities to your personal palate. "How do you educate and train people for jobs that don't exist yet?" asks Michael Thurmond, Georgia's labor commissioner. "As long as you know how to learn, [employers] can train you to do a job."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
